*runs for the tv*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*mutters* Nothing to watch on tv... Don't want to watch the stupid SOTU...
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I know...my husband just said, "Hey, turn it to West Wing...aw, DARN it!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, that's funny. "We can't watch the fake president because the real president is on!" Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't watch West Wing, either. I don't watch most things involving presidents.
Air Force One was an exception, because Harrison Ford was in it. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
George W. Bush George W. Bush George W. Bush George W. Bush
I'm so happy!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Something like that! The fake president is much more interesting and much less disturbing than the real one...at least to us, anyway.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Was McCain asleep in that last shot?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
For some reason listening to Bush is a bit... frustrating for me... But, most politicians are like that, which is depressing.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Listening to Bush to me is like:
[ February 02, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Yet another reason not to own a television. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why though? It aggravates me how he mixes up his sentences at times and says illogical things... But, anyone who says illogical things can annoy me...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ahhh……….. Illogical to you. To conservatives it’s a dream come true. Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Did anyone else think the asbestos mention in the 'frivolous lawsuits' was a bit odd?
And, as a student, his talk about No Child Left Behind quite frankly ticks me off.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Just once I'd like to watch one of these and not have them mention our "dependence on foreign oil." When was the last time it wasn't mentioned, '85 or so ?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the Cards might prefer you not drool on their couch, Jay.
[ February 02, 2005, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: I think the Cards might prefer you not have an orgasm on their couch, Jay.
I’ll leave that to you when you watch the next Michael Moore fictional movie fugu
[ February 02, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
fugu you could make your point without such an ugly statement.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
and jay you could quit acting like a child.
Not that i'm telling anyone what to do mind you, just saying what you could do. If you wanted to.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
yes mom. (get it...Ma Belle)
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: jay you could quit acting like a child
Whatever
Now, back to the great State of the Union!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh* I really didn't think it was that bad, I avoided the offensive euphemisms and used nice, clean, biological language.
Guess I've been hanging around college students too long.
*goes to edit and hopefully maintain some of the wry humor*
(to clarify, that above is a sigh of contrition, not of impatience)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
thank you fugu. You rock.
Jay, your behavior is alienating me, and it's hard to find someone more conservative than myself.
Your not helping your cause, and your making the rest of us conservatives look bad.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You must be a John McCain Republican then. Every TRUE Republican I know is soooo excited about this speech and the whole Presidency and defends Bush at every opportunity.
Oh... Fun! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
While the domestic policy parts of the speech (the first half) didn't really sound much different than I expected in eithter content (although, if he actually expects to make his generalities into specific policies, the President wasn't kidding about "spending his political capital") or quality, the second half was remarkably good.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Decent speech, hit all the major points - energy, SS, health care, Iraq. The President has become a much better public speaker in the last year or so.
Only suprise was I thought I heard him call out Egypt, to support democracy in the ME....was expecting some Iran talk, but Egypt ? Can't say I disagree, just caught unawares.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote: You must be a John McCain Republican then. Every TRUE Republican...
Jay, I realize you're on a political high right now but to imply that Republicans who prefer/preferred McCain aren't really Republicans is lunacy and part of the image problem you have on this board.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Belle I couldn't agree with you more about Jay. I thought the speech was very good. I voted for the president and support many of his policies. However, blatant cheerleading simply to draw the ire of our left leaning friends annoys me as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Every TRUE Republican I know is soooo excited about this speech and the whole Presidency and defends Bush at every opportunity.
This will always be true only so long as you continue to define a "TRUE Republican" as someone who's excited about the speech and the whole Presidency and defends Bush at every opportunity.
It's like saying a "TRUE Packers fan" is never allowed to say that Favre may be getting a bit long in the tooth.
[ February 02, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: Every TRUE Republican I know is soooo excited about this speech and the whole Presidency and defends Bush at every opportunity.
Because you are obviously the leader of the Republican party, and so are able to judge who belongs to your exclusive club or not.
By the way, I now state that all liberals are not TRUE liberals unless they violently hate Bush for no real reason. Also, they have to love Michael Moore. To pieces. And they have to be impregnated with John Kerry's children.
[ February 02, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, and I swear to freakin' Buddha, these political guys had better stop messing around and roll out the cold fusion already. They have to have cold fusion, because otherwise their economic proposals are completely delusional.
To put it another way, I'll give great odds to anyone who is willing to bet that President Bush is going to cut the deficit in half or that he even has a reasonable plan to do so that has any chance of working.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Financial Times several times mentioned Bush not mentioning where the "thousands of billions" (since trillions has different definitions in different places) needed to fund his proposal would be found.
(and they be one of the most important, influential, and conservative papers in the world)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
One important thing to remember with economic models, such as the model that allowed Bush to say he can cut the deficit in half by 2009, is that it all depends on what the model uses as inputs for some key numbers. So Bush can say that he has a model that "proves" that the deficit can be cut in four years despite permanent tax cuts AND social security reform, but that model most likely puts GDP growth at something insane like 7 or 8%. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know the sad thing is I’m only cheering for Bush 1/10 as much as people are cheering against him.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
My mom walked in while I was reading this thread and she called all of the smileys cute. She especially liked this one . I don't know why I found it so amusing but I did.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, the FT has nothing against Bush, its just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems to be claiming he can pull money out of a hat.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If Bush was not doing so many illogical things and if some of his policies were not just wrong I would not be against him.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jay, do you wake up in the morning and set a goal for how many people you're going to alienate that day?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our first lady, Laura Bush.
First off, I'm not sure that Bush rejects violence, I'm eager to see Laura Bush hustle. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
[ February 03, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I hope he follows through and it doesn't go the way of AmeriCorps.
Of course, in a broader sense I'm wondering if its going to be done in a way that should involve the federal government; somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Watching the SOTU right now. Commenting as I go. I don't see how he can cut the deficit in half with cut taxes and spending growth just below inflation, where are the extra funds coming from? Cutting tons of programs? What programs? The man needs to give details.
He wants to expand No Child to high school? why doesn't he wait to make sure it works for the lower grades first? I like that he wants to increase the size of Pell Grants, lord knows I could use it, but where is the money coming from?
Asbestos claims are frivilous? Damned people and their wanting to be able to pay their medical bills! Geez these people will give anything a standing ovation. I like what he wants to do with health care, all of that sounds like an improvement, but again, where is the money coming from?
Uh oh, energy, here we go ::braces for impact:: Clear Skies is a joke, it ruins the Clean Air Act, clean coal is a joke too. And apparently four years of debate isn't enough, people still don't like his plan. Still, how do we pay for a new power grid, nuclear power plants and the like?
lol, he said "doodie"
Examine the tax code, good stuff. Immigration reform, very good stuff, but that too will cost a lot of money.
Social Security, I give the man credit for putting himself on the line to save SS, but will his plan really work? I like how people clap whenever he makes a dramatic pause, regardless of what he said "SS benefits are in trouble" ::CHEER!:: Woah, the man has lots of numbers, gotta give him credit for that. I honestly have to say it really seems like he cares, and I applaud him for that, and for the fact that he is considering all the options, well apparently except raising taxes on the wealthy. And here's the personal retirement accounts, which I don't really like the sound of. Your money only grows at a greater rate if you aggressively push the money through the marketplace, otherwise it grows at the same rate as before, plus you risk losing it all if the market drops, that isn't secure at all. How can they assure its safety like that? It isn't feasible.
I totally don't like the ban on gay marriage, and I'm glad everyone there didn't clap like sycophants. Don't agree with the anti stem cell research stuff. I don't agree with him wanting to take away the power of judicial review, it is their right to declare laws unconstitutional. I really like the initiative to help young men in the city, so long as it isn't caked with religious undertones (But how to pay for it?). And it's about friggin time Laura did something. I like the DNA thing (more funding? again, where is the money coming from?)
Foreign policy, I don't see how he can praise Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in one sentence, and decry tyranny in the next. He needs to make up his mind, he can't flip flop on that one and hope to get anything done.
quote:America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Eventually someone needs to hold his feet to the fire on that one and get a clear answer out of him. That's a lofty goal, and I agree with it, but at what point do we actually start using plays from our own playbook?
I like how he wants to help Palestine, on this one I don't care where the money comes from, it's worth every cent. Nice of him to pick a fight with Syria and Iran, at this point, why not? Can't really get much worse short of all out war can it?
As a whole, on average, I think I like the speech and what he had to say. I like his programs, most of his ideas, and what he wants to do. But I don't understand how he will pay for any of it, let alone all of it. You can't cut a couple hundred billion dollar deficit in half when you want to increase spending by that much to pay for this stuff, especially without raising taxes. He needs details, now, and if they measure up, I might actually find myself supporting him.
Oh no, I'm questioning my Liberal identity!!
[Edit to add: AmeriCorps failed because Bush cut its funding and created FreedomCorps, the same thing but with a new name. And AmeriCorps/FreedomCorps needs more funding. They turn away volunteers at my University because of a lack of funding.]
[ February 03, 2005, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Darn! I missed it!
***
I went folk dancing instead. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn, Bush promised to increase (I believe the number cited was double) AmeriCorps funding at the SOTU after September 11th. As you note, he then worked to decrease its funding. Hence my earlier comment.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Was there just one Justice wearing his robe or did only one show up? Odd. They usually all show up/wear their robes.
I thought Bush's speach was ok. I liked the guests, the Iraqi woman and the parents of the dead soldier. It was pretty cool when the two mom's hugged. Really brought it out that her son didn't die for nothing.
The only thing I was really against, of course, was the anti-gay/protection of marriage thing. Everything else was ok, I suppose. I'm not an economist so I can't really say if his plans for saving Social Security will work or not... I hope they do. And I do agree that the tax code needs to be simplified greatly.
And what was that when Bush kissed the cheek of that senior Democrat? Why was Bush thanking him?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Foreign policy, I don't see how he can praise Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in one sentence, and decry tyranny in the next.
I'm pretty sure Musharraf overthrew the elected prime minister around 1999, and Saudi Arabia is proudly anti-democratic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Exactly my point, how can he promote the end of tyranny but praise Pakistan and Saudi Arabia when they are ruled by Musharraf and Abdullah, both men who are against democracy in the nations they rule.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"And what was that when Bush kissed the cheek of that senior Democrat?"
A reenactment with the senior Democrat representing the American public.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait a second, Americorps is failing? This is one of the very problems I have with Bush. Americorps is a wonderful program I joined after college. I'd like to join it again. It does a lot of good. In our program we helped children who were having difficulty reading. If any program needs as much money and support poured into it as possible, it's the Americorps program. But what does he do? Praise it one second, cut it the next, mainly to fund these unnessasary tax cuts. When will he learn that you really, really cannot have your cake and eat it too? You can't cut trillions of dollars worth of capital gain tax and estate tax that won't even benefit most ordinary citizens AND expect things to run smoothly. If he really wants to save social security, cut the tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminate corporate welfare and tax loopholes for people who don't need it and cut the taxes of the middle class, raise EIC for the poor and people who need it, do things like that. Start doing something that benefits more than just the 1%. But he will not do that. He will keep doing the same stuff that doesn't work. Keep pushing stuff like NCLB. Keep weakening regulations and doing all the stuff that just supports a small minority while saying it's good for the majority and people will keep right on blindly and cheerfully supporting him and nothing will change. What's the point?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
How come conservatives scream for smaller government, yet worship politicians like they were Jesus?
In the 4 years that Bush has been President, has the government gotten smaller?
Yes.
The asbestos thing was WEIRD.
Like, Everyone in America agrees that one of our biggest problems is those people bringing up their fake lawsuits against Halliburton and it's harmless use of asbestos!
Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marriage.
That's butt f-ing hilarious!
Republicans sure love to talk about gay people.
Penis this, penis that.
<T>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, one quick aside: For people screaming about the asbestos claims are frivolous line, the problem there is not that any claim about asbestos is frivolous, but that many people who have not been injured are filing frivolous suits to get in on the action. This is slowing down recovery for people who actually need it.
I'll try to find a link later, but even many plaintiff advocates have complained about it.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. It's very hard to find an unbiased link on it, but it's definitely happening.
I know Bush makes the distinction between frivolous and legitimate claims, because I've seen him quote numbers on it, but I need to see the transcript to see if he made that distinction adequately last night. Certainly, the one sentence everyone is quoting did not.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd assumed that the specific mention of asbestos claims was a tip of the hat to Vice President Cheney, who acquired Dresser Industries for Halliburton and nearly doubled their size (good) but also acquired 300,000 asbestos lawsuits which cost Halliburton a pretty penny to deal with (bad).
Good to know they're a legitimate concern of tort reform. But are asbestos claims the worst example? If so, no worries, good on him. If not, Bush's constant mention is a clear gift to Cheney and an example of favoring legislation to benefit specific supporters.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The President has made it a priority to encourage Americans to dedicate at least two years or 4,000 hours over the course of their lifetimes to volunteer service and civic involvement. To help Americans answer his call, the President created the USA Freedom Corps; requested slightly over $1 billion in the FY 2005 Budget for funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, including $415 million for AmeriCorps programs and $150 million to support AmeriCorps education awards, $225 million for SeniorCorps, $20 million for Silver Scholarships for older Americans who volunteer 500 hours of service tutoring and mentoring students in exchange for a $1,000 scholarship; and has overseen the highest enrollment in the Peace Corps in 28 years. Between 2002 and 2003, the number of Americans volunteering increased from 59.8 million to 63.8 million.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That looks awfully like a copy/paste, Jay, and you certainly got the information from somewhere. Care to cite your source?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But are asbestos claims the worst example?
They're the only ones I can think of where even some plaintiff lawyers are complaining loudly.
It's the best example, in my mind, of an area with many frivolous suits mixed in with many good ones. Some things, like the EMF suits from power lines, are frivolous en toto, but the more insidious problems are in areas with many legitimate claims, such as asbestos and medical malpractice.
Dagonee
[ February 03, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I'm impressed and pleased that so many of you watched it. Even if you don't agree with our current president, it is good that you are listening to the State of the Union and giving feedback and keeping yourself educated on the current administration.
I have problems with people who complain about the administration, but stick their heads in the sand and refuse to educate themselves on the viewpoints of that administraion -- other than listening to other people's opinions, and not the president himself.
So I appreciate your debate here -- it shows you are open minded enough to be informed from the horses' mouth and make your comment based on that.
I hope (and believe) I would have done the same had Kerry won. I think no matter who is my president, I should be listening, as an American, to know what my leader is saying.
Farmgirl
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time. Raising the national debt limit doesn't help either, it just pushes the responsibility for repaying the debt onto the next president.
Folks, if any of us ran our households like this, we'd be homeless and destitute on the streets. Whether you disklike Bush or adore him, are a Republican or Democrat, you have to see that he is not creating policies that make fiscal sense. Frankly, these policies don't even make it past a common sense test.
I become very worried about our country when I hear some of the hare-brained plans that are being considered for our country and how they will affect us fiscally.
The plan for Social Security is laughable in its deliberately deceptive double-speak. I can't even begin to cover it here in the forums...but read the Washington Post article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6903404/
What's worse is that it doesn't even mention MediCare, which is tied so closely to Social Security that any attempt to change one program will impact the other. Not to mention the fact that it's widely believed that MediCare will go bust years before SS.
What's so frustrating about this, is that we're just along for the ride. Our representatives don't live by the same rules as us, and aren't affected by their actions or in-actions until they run for election. Policy-making has stopped being about policy, and has just become another gimmick to sustain the career of self-serving politicians...
BAH!!!
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Jay, govt funded "service" is not a conservative idea. As BW pointed out, Kerry wanted the same thing. Would you be in favor of this idea if Kerry was the President? I think it is dangerous to put too much faith in any one man. In many ways (especially govt spending) Bush is far to liberal for me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time.
Sure you can. You just cut funding to other programs that don't fit your ideology.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: In the 4 years that Bush has been President, has the government gotten smaller?
Yes.
No Silverblue, it hasn't. The Department of Homeland Security's creation was the biggest expansion of government in the last couple decades. Government has ballooned under Bush.
The man has some great ideas, but it seems he wants to pull the money to fund them out of that bag that Mary Poppins had where she pulled lamps and mirrors from. I don't agree with him cutting 150 federal programs, especially without specifically naming what they are.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
the Yes. was for the asbestos suit.
I was asking "has the Government gotten smaller?" without answering.
I still ask....
if conservatives want smaller government, how come they worship their politicians like they were Jesus????
George W. doesn't believe he's made any mistakes and those who support him agree.
Look I LOVE Bill Clinton, but recognize he was very flawed.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Silverblue, I support George Bush, but I certainly don't agree with everything he does.
Obviously, as a conservative, I am very concerned about the money we are currently spending hand-over-fist.
I also don't agree with him on most environmental policies.
FG
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
I can't believe I have to say this but many of us that voted for the president don't support him blindly in all that he does. I for one hate the fact that the government has increased in size under Bush. The president has obviously made mistakes and he and all of his clear thinking supporters know this.
I'm sure we might disagree on what those mistakes were. I'm thinking about steel tariffs and the presciption drug benefit in particular.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What does Bush have against offering specifics? He always has plans but never wants to tell anyone what the details of the plans are. Social Security plan, Iraq plan, Deficit Reduction plan, but never any details on the plans. I crave details!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:What does Bush have against offering specifics? He always has plans but never wants to tell anyone what the details of the plans are. Social Security plan, Iraq plan, Deficit Reduction plan, but never any details on the plans. I crave details!
That is just hilarious to me --- mainly because I remember saying nearly the same thing about Kerry during the campaign! Lots of talk and no specifics.
I guess it's just an all-around politician thing
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Chris,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time.
Sure you can. You just cut funding to other programs that don't fit your ideology.
Oh yeah, you can cut costs that don't fit your ideology, like military veterans benefits, federal funding for infrastructure, or head-start programs for inner-city kids...
Hmmm...seems like a skewed ideology if you ask me. Cut some kids before school breakfast so that we can buy three more bombs. Give $100,000 to the families of dead soldiers, while you cut money from VA hospitals. (And by-the-by, isn't the act of paying the family of dead soldiers a little too similar to Saadam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers?)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lack of specifics during a campaign is largely unavoidable (and wasn't entirely true, either, Kerry had numbers posted for some of his plans). Lack of specifics when you're right now at the moment writing a bill on the subject is much harder to excuse.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote: (And by-the-by, isn't the act of paying the family of dead soldiers a little too similar to Saadam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may want to rethink that HT. Rewarding the family of murderers who kill themselves with the stated goal of taking as many innocents (including women and children) with them as possible is a far cry from helping the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:if conservatives want smaller government, how come they worship their politicians like they were Jesus????
George W. doesn't believe he's made any mistakes and those who support him agree.
Taking the most obvious meaning of "those who support him" to be "all those who support him," you're entirely wrong. If you mean "some of those who support them," you're right, but your counter-example of you not liking everything Clinton did becomes irrelevant.
Dagonee
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: That is just hilarious to me --- mainly because I remember saying nearly the same thing about Kerry during the campaign! Lots of talk and no specifics.
Not true Farmgirl. Kerry had most of his plans laid out either on his website, or he had given details in his speeches. No one ever paid any attention and the media and Conservatives kept saying he wasn't offering specifics, so even when he did they just kept harping on him until everyone believed it. Sure he was tight lipped about some things, I think in a campaign you sometimes needs to be (Bush was just as non forthcoming about his plans and details too, which used to infuriate me when he would say "How will Kerry pay for it?" without saying how he would pay for any of his programs).
But regardless of how the election went, it's over now. Bush is the man with the plan, he just needs to tell us what the friggin plan is.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Even if you don't agree with our current president, it is good that you are listening to the State of the Union and giving feedback and keeping yourself educated on the current administration."
And if you kept yourself informed, you would have noticed that there are more lies, overt and implied, than there were sentences.
[ February 03, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
John Kerry was a total noodle. He is a sad, sad representation of the state of the democrats. He's the best they could do, and he sucked, big time.
Remember during the debates, when the moderator lofted up a softball question about how much they love their wives and Bush waxed passionate and loving, and then Kerry droned on like he was explaining the low income tax credit?
Kerry was a lousy candidate. (though I still think all the republicans who bashed his vietnam service were being lousy humans)
Bush has more balls than any president I've ever heard of.
He wants to spread/force democracy to every non-democratic nation, he wants to totally overhall social security (the most successful gov program ever), he wants to totally re-write the tax code, and then his stupid, stupid, stupid constitutional amendment about banning gay marriage.
The dude is confident, that's for sure.
I do want to make a note.
I believe changing social security into private savings accounts that could be passed on to other family members could be great, but if he lets people put that money into stocks, that is just pure idiocy to the point of almost evil.
it would be another way to let corporation fatheads get fatter while bilking and milking honest hardworking people out of their money.
The stock market is evil.
You might as well let them invest their savings on the super bowl, Eagles are +7 but the Pats are killers.
...bet the over.
<T>
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I do support Bush, but he still scares me.
I think turning Social Security into personal savings accounts could be great, as long as they were ONLY savings accounts and could be touched until an old age like 60-ish.
...but turning them into savings accounts where they could be spent at anytime or would be tied into the stock market is a disaster falling.
I think the 60,000 page tax code needs to be simplified. Total and Absolute.
...but this is "The Christian Warrior" who gave billionaires 10 straight years of tax cuts come Osama Bin Laden, Iraq, Tsunamis or stock market crashes.
Does he really believe that allowing 320 billionaires to have more money, land and power will strength our society and the world over all?
I want Bush to do well, but he seems like a character from a Sci-fi film.
<T>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Bush has more balls than any president I've ever heard of.
TR is my man all the way. Until Teddy Roosevelt was president, the Congress was the main arm of power in the government, and the nation was so pro business that they would clamor for the President to send in the national guard to break up strikes and send the people back to work.
TR was the first president to stand up and take command, he sent in troops to PROTECT the strikers, he put millions of acres of land under protection and single handedly created the National Parks system, he broke the trusts (that being especially significant when the nation had been laissez faire for more than a century and everyone thought this was radical and insane). Until Roosevelt's presidency 70% of all federal employees worked for the post office, and presidents tended to answer their own mail AND actually answer their own phones. Our army was the size of what NYC's police force is today. Roosevelt created the modern presidency, and never let congress or the world stop him from achieving his goals. I don't know of any president with more balls than that.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Plus TR was a quote making machine "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" That's a classic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure there's a difference between being dictatorial -- something that Bush and FDR had in spades -- and actually having "balls."
"Balls" implies that you're willing to face the public, be honest about your policies and procedures, and work within existing legal structures instead of trying to subvert and/or undermine them in order to get your way more easily. This is, after all, the hard way, and the one that takes both more bravery and more skill. Bush's approach -- and FDR's approach, mind you -- has been quite the opposite.
I'm not sure that Teddy Roosevelt had the most "balls," but he was certainly up there.
[ February 04, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:I believe changing social security into private savings accounts that could be passed on to other family members could be great, but if he lets people put that money into stocks, that is just pure idiocy to the point of almost evil.
Silverblue, Bush's plan would not allow people to invest in individual stocks, only in diversified mutual funds. When investing is done properly it is nothing like gambling and certainly not evil.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Generally index mutual funds (especially large and mid cap) are extremely safe, has low transaction costs, and requires virtually no management decisions on the part of the fund manager or investor.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yeah I don't see the inherent evilness in it. - (see my other thread about social security specifically)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They are extremely safe viewed in the indefinite long term. Problems do arise, however, when one is looking in the short term or at a definite endpoint, because the stock market does go down at times, often dramatically.
Also, market gains for the next 100 years will not be as good as market gains for the previous hundred years. The past hundred years has been characterized by the utilization of modern manufacturing and production techniques and the shortening of the information delay. Nowadays we understand the basics of manufacturing and production, and the information delay is virtually nonexistent.
There could, of course, be another revolution in production, but such things are astonishingly rare. There have been . . . maybe 5 or 6 on the order of the one we've recently been in the process of utilizing. While there's certainly advancement remaining in information utilization, I do not think it belongs in the same category, and we already have much of the infrastructure in place, so advancement is not likely going to be as dramatic.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Fugu, current expert opinion supports your view that returns will likely be more moderate going forward. No one can know that for certain but I tend to agree. That doesn't change the need for private accounts. I would support private accounts even if the only investment options were bonds and REITs. At least in that scenario we would control our own destinee and not be constantly subject to the whims of government. Would you support private accounts if the stock market was not involved?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The problem is that the market for bonds and Reits would be fundamentally altered by such a restriction, because the increase in demand would be incredibly high.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
The U.S. fixed income market including, govt, agency and corporate debt is much larger than the domestic stock market in terms of dollars. It is true that private accounts have the potential to alter market valuations but the bond market has more capacity to absorb new investments than any of the other choices mentioned. The REIT market on the other hand is relatively small and could be drastically effected by large inflows.
All of that being said, I am not in favor of taking out the stock market component. I was just wondering if the fact that stock mutual funds are an investment option is the primary concern of opponents of the idea or if they would be against private accounts in any form.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm actually in favor of ending the farce that SS is somehow a retirement savings program or really separate from the rest of the budget. Social Security is a social welfare program which is extensively linked to the rest of the budget, and it should be reformed in understanding of that status.
This means: Stop the separate tax. Payments should go out based on need. Costs and benefits of the system should be considered part of the general budget and not as an externality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
holden -- if any large parts of the bond purchases were of government instruments, there's almost no point. Its just exchanging direct payments for other forms of expenditures (in this case, bond interest payments), except now its a cost that looks even further in the future so people will ignore the coming disaster even more.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Fugu, this would only be true if the govt issued new bonds. I am talking about investing in oustanding issues. Govt payments would remain the same.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:I'm actually in favor of ending the farce that SS is somehow a retirement savings program or really separate from the rest of the budget. Social Security is a social welfare program which is extensively linked to the rest of the budget, and it should be reformed in understanding of that status
If we can't move towards private accounts I agree.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The current government bond demand would go nowhere but up, so the governments would be effectively forced into issuing new bonds roughly equivalent to the amounts new bond purchasers were purchasing them in, unless it wanted to risk high inflation.
And as private accounts don't fix the fundamental problems in the system if we continue to treat it at all as a social welfare program (which Bush does), even if we have private accounts we're going to need to do what I'm talking about eventually. Most of what I'm talking about is just accounting for the costs properly instead of hiding them likely we currently do to inflate the strength of our economy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Most of what I'm talking about is just accounting for the costs properly instead of hiding them likely we currently do to inflate the strength of our economy.
I'm in favor of that with a lot of areas of the economy.
Just getting costs truly reflected in price would solve or reduce a lot of problems in a lot of areas.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, one of the reasons governments should use subsidies instead of tariffs, for instance.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:The current government bond demand would go nowhere but up, so the governments would be effectively forced into issuing new bonds roughly equivalent to the amounts new bond purchasers were purchasing them in, unless it wanted to risk high inflation
Fugu, you have it backwards. As bond prices rise (due to high demand) interest rates fall. There is an inverse relationship between bond values (prices) and the rates that they pay. So high demand for bonds actually causes lower interest rates not higher. If the government were to issue more bonds as you suggest it would CAUSE not prevent inflation. Think about it, the more debt an entity has, the higher rate they must pay.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I don't have it backwords. Say one has some number of US bonds. Now, if one sells those bonds, the interest rate on them does not change. Higher demand for bonds in a market with no additional bonds will drive the cost of bonds up without changing the interest rate on those bonds.
Interest rates only fall as governments issue more bonds in a higher demand market, because they don't need to provide as much interest based incentive for purchase.
The thing is, institutional possession of bonds is (basically) based on two factors, how much risk they wish to engage in and how they estimate the exchange value of the currency they possess bonds in will change. A company which expects currency X to strengthen will purchase bonds in currency X, then trade those off for other instruments when they feel currency X is no longer sufficiently likely to strengthen further.
This helps stabilize currency exchange rates and international trade.
However, if some sort of change (like large numbers of US citizens purchasing them) drove bond demand up, these institutional players would be less likely to purchase US bonds in comparison to other bonds, as the bond price (due to demand) would be shifted out of relation to the bond interest rate and the currency exchange rate.
This would drive inflation and weaken the dollar (the dollar weakens whenever players sell dollar based instruments and purchase instruments in other currencies; this can cause inflation, though its often the other way around. It is better to say that inflation and a weak dollar are loosely correlated than to say that either one directly causes the other). In order to stop this, the federal government would release more bonds which would, as you say, lower bond interest rates (though inflation would be largely unimpacted by those interest rate changes, as they are driven by the demand side, not the supply side).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
fugu's entirely right. In fact, his post could serve as a primer for bond pricing.
Another argument I've heard for Bush's Social Security plan -- that it would increase savings rates, thus restricting money supply -- is also flawed. Leaving aside the issue that capital investment is not and should never be confused with savings (especially when we're talking about money supply), Bush's plan replaces mandatory "tax" with what is, in most cases, a smaller mandatory "tax" that's allocated to capital investment. In other words, the percentage of personal income required to go to "savings" (although it's worth noting that in neither plan are any monies "saved" against anything) actually decreases under Bush's plan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its worth pointing out that many of the "rules" one learns in economics classes, particularly the first 2 in the micro and the macro series (so 4 total), are heuristics, not really causal relationships.
For instance, holden's entirely right that when bond demand goes up interest rates on the bonds will go down -- but that's because the bond issuer issues more bonds, which is my point.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Sorry Fugu still wrong. Not close to a primer in bond pricing Tom.
quote: Say one has some number of US bonds. Now, if one sells those bonds, the interest rate on them does not change. Higher demand for bonds in a market with no additional bonds will drive the cost of bonds up without changing the interest rate on those bonds.
The interest rate may not change for the interest payer,(in this case the govt) but it certainly does for the new owner. You buy a bond at par ($1000 per bond) paying 5% interest. You bond increases in value due to increased demand to $1100 but is still paying a 5% coupon. Someone purchases the bond from you they will have to pay $1100 for the bond and will still receive the 5% coupon calculated on the original par value of $1000. This equates to a current yield of 4.5%. Interest rates have fallen. The yield to maturity on this bond is even lower because you paid a premium for the bond $1100 and it will mature at par $1000. So you will receive coupon payments during the life of the bond and will experience a $100 capital loss. (in order to figure exact yield to maturity we would have to designate a duration period for the bond)
quote:Interest rates only fall as governments issue more bonds in a higher demand market, because they don't need to provide as much interest based incentive for purchase.
It sounds like you are saying interest rates fall because the govt is issuing new bonds. It is true that in a high demand market the govt can offer less interest incentive and still sell the bonds but in general the more bonds the govt offers for sale, the higher the interest rate must be in order to sell them. There is only so much demand at each level of interest rates. Once the govt satisfies demand at each level, it must raise the rate they are paying in order to bring more demand to the market.
quote:However, if some sort of change (like large numbers of US citizens purchasing them) drove bond demand up, these institutional players would be less likely to purchase US bonds in comparison to other bonds, as the bond price (due to demand) would be shifted out of relation to the bond interest rate and the currency exchange rate.
It is certainly true that if the increase in demand for bonds was suficient to make yields unatractive to foreign governments they might sell their appreciated U.S. bonds and invest in other more attractive markets. This would add supply of bonds to the market, which would cause bond prices to fall and yields to rise. It would also as you pointed out due to the Law of one Price weaken the dollar. While it is possible that if this were to happen very suddenly it could lead to massive repatriation by foreigners and collapse of our markets but that is extremely unlikely given the scenario we are using in this example.
quote:In order to stop this, the federal government would release more bonds which would, as you say, lower bond interest rates
The act of the federal government issuing new bonds does not lower interest rates. If current rates are low they can issue bonds at lower rates yes, but the act of issuing new bonds (adding new supply)pushes the price of bonds down and the yield they must pay up. The exact opposite of what you said.
The only point you made that I agree with is that a weaker dollar can lead to inflation, sometimes. The idea that an increase in bond demand WILL lead to foreign repatriation and inflation is not true. In the short term at the very least the exact opposite is true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If we end SS as it is now, what happens to the current recipients?"
Under Bush's plan, we would continue deficit spending -- at an increased rate -- to fund existing recipients.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
The Bush plan would not change the system for current beneficiaries. Doing nothing however would force us at some point to either cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
George W. Bush ![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
in that last shot?
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I’ll leave that to you when you watch the next ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Michael Moore fictional movie ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
BAH!!!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)