posted
Lyrhawn: no, he'll just fail to put political support behind it, let it flounder in Congress, then assert that Congress never gave him a bill to sign whenever someone tries to call him on it. Same thing his administration has done before, repeatedly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu - Just before midterms? Democrats can seize that and run with it. They can make it an election issue. "Republicans don't care about the future of America's energy security." If they vote against it.
It's the same thing Republicans have been doing to Democrats for years over tax cuts versus raising taxes. All the Democrats have to do is get the ball rolling and pounce where they may.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they can't, not particularly. Most maneuverings in Congress don't involve voting, and even when they do people rarely care. Were someone to vote against a bill receiving a lot of positive publicity, sure, but if the President doesn't get behind the bill and the Republicans don't get behind the bill, then they'll just say any Democrat sponsored bill goes too far and preferably not let it reach the floor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Democrats put forth a bill that exactly matches what the President proposed in his speech. They can always ask for more later, and probably won't get it, but that doesn't leave the President any more to maneuver.
Besides, how can you say that? voting doesn't matter? Republicans hammer Democrats every election on voting records that involve taxes. When it comes to money, people take notice, and energy prices are on the minds of a LOT of lower income voters. People will take notice, with or without the media, if the Democrats play it even marginally well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The President's proposal in his speech was hardly exact enough for a bill. And I repeat, it would hardly be likely to hit the floor. In fact, since they're in a majority they could pretty easily get the Democrats to kill it by adding unwanted riders.
Yes, voting doesn't matter in most cases. Both sides use it to get out their own constituencies, but its not very important for changing the opinions of those who don't know who they're voting for, merely those who aren't necessarily going out to vote.
The few times its been used successfully, such as by certain Bush campaign supporters, the voting records are twisted to such an extent the ads were effectively lying about his opponents. First, I like that fewer Democrats use such ads. Second, it doesn't much matter how anyone votes as far as those ads are concerned, since they're twisted versions of the truth anyways (guess what, everyone in Congress has voted against bills that included money for cancer research!).
Particularly as the Dems won't be campaigning against Bush himself, while they might be able to get a campaign together talking about unfulfilled SOTU promises, it wouldn't net them many votes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is plenty they can take from it. Energy was just one thing, I think they can take his call for more teachers and use that heavily to their advantage as well. Energy and Education have been democratic (some might say Liberal) issues for awhile now.
It all depends on how they play it, and how much media attention they can get out of it before the midterms. Attacking Bush equals attacking Republicans to a lot of people, and the more he messes up, and the more scandals hit, the more ineffective they will look.
If it dies in committee, it's one more thing the Democrats can add to their list of ways Republicans are hurting America.
They CAN use this, it's just a question of how, and media willingness to follow along.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) For the record, he has called for a reduction in oil dependence or the implementation of alternative energy every year that I can remember, and my memory isn't bad.
2) Reducing our imports 75 percent from the Middle East could cause more harm than good. As the long as Middle East oil is necessary for a stable world economy, then we are beholden to that region. In addition, I thought we were pushing for economic growth and free democracies in that region. If that's the case, shouldn't we be promoting a relationship, and not cutting and running. Anyway, maybe I'm talking nuance.
3) I have more math and science than I'll ever need or want. I do agree that the US should house the best math and science facilities in the world, but as to general education, I think that the primacy of science-- even the psuedo-sciences-- in American education lead to a political and moral deficiency. Free and equal people in a democracy need to be able to read, write, and think. I'm not sure they need to take integrals.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: 1) For the record, he has called for a reduction in oil dependence or the implementation of alternative energy every year that I can remember, and my memory isn't bad.
2) Reducing our imports 75 percent from the Middle East could cause more harm than good. As the long as Middle East oil is necessary for a stable world economy, then we are beholden to that region. In addition, I thought we were pushing for economic growth and free democracies in that region. If that's the case, shouldn't we be promoting a relationship, and not cutting and running. Anyway, maybe I'm talking nuance.
So much as I remember, there has always been an emphasis on producing MORE oil at home to reduce foreign oil. I don't recall him ever advocating a switch away from an oil based energy ecomomy. Feel free to prove me wrong by checking previous states of the union. I'm not positive.
And how does a reduction in our consumption ruin the world economy? If anything, it helps it. Our reduction in consumption will balance the rise in consumption from China and India. Otherwise, prices would skyrocket and snarl the world economy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So much as I remember, there has always been an emphasis on producing MORE oil at home to reduce foreign oil. I don't recall him ever advocating a switch away from an oil based energy ecomomy. Feel free to prove me wrong by checking previous states of the union. I'm not positive.
He's mentioned support for fuel cell cars before. I believe that it was in the last State of the Union address. I don't think that there was as much emphasis on it as there was this time. I think the most significant part of the energy portion wasn't his call for research, it was the lack of proposed domestic drilling increases.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. This is the first time in a couple years he hasn't called for the opening of ANWR.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't recall him ever advocating a switch away from an oil based energy ecomomy. Feel free to prove me wrong by checking previous states of the union. I'm not positive.
It's been a theme, actually. Bush has been talking about the need for good alternative energy sources since the Bush /Gore election.
I remember this quite specifically, because it almost caused me to reconsider how goofy I thought he was during that campaign. 'Here's a moderate, forward-thinking Republican,' I thought.
Ultimately I voted for Nader, but Bush would have been my second choice, over Gore.
Now I see how suckered I was.
'Human-animal Hybrids'... Good lord. He's like a crazy person.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush said: The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment ... move beyond a petroleum-based economy ... and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.
quote:Lyrhawn: Did he seriously just say that? I think I just had a tiny orgasm. An energy plan from BUSH that is based on alternative energy and innovation and NOT based on drilling in Alaska!? It's a miracle! He must have been channeling Al Gore and John Kerry.
posted
I just saw this on my brother's blog, and it makes me sick. From the NY Times via Daily Kos blog
quote: The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
So on Tues. Bush is gung-ho for alternative energy, and promising more research money for it, and less then 48 hours later staff cuts National Renewable Energy Laboratory are announced? What an utter liar! His staff will have to spin faster than a Kerr-Newman black hole to explain this travesty away.
Don't they know there is a rhadamanthine interval between the making of promises in speeches and their obligatory abnegation and gainsaying?? 48 hours is just rude and idiotic.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a bunch of crap. No one has forgotten the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing from Iraq. Just how much of his bull$h** does he really expect we're going to take? He said CLEARLY in the sotu, there was no waffling. And the VERY NEXT DAY he claims he meant something entirely different?
Where is his credibility? Does it mean so little to him anymore that he can say something in a major address and then retract it the very next day?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There, you see why he frustrates me? He did the same thing with Americorps and so many other issues... How can people put UP with this?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it's my own fault for being reasonable enough to actually try and trust Bush and Republicans in general.
I should have stuck to my gut and disbelieved their promises. This is what I get for trying to be bipartisan and reasonable. This just confirms that he's a liar.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: There, you see why he frustrates me? He did the same thing with Americorps and so many other issues... How can people put UP with this?
People put up with this because they don't want to think of the alternative - that they were wrong to vote for this person. That they made a mistake in judgement. That they were duped.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: But then I got sad after I read the last 10 years of SOTU addresses and compared the promises contained in those with reality. Seems like nothing will get done domestically.
Even if he manages to get these teacher proposals passed, will they get funded? One reason 'no child left behind' doesn't work is because it is underfunded. Many states are near bankruptcy because of the withdrawal of Federal funding for such mandated projects, adding to their already bulging budget responsibilities.
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: "social security doesn't work because, back when it was created, people didn't live as long."
What a crock. Social Security is fully funded well into the future through Treasury Bonds - Treasury Bonds because the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided... um... borrowed from... by one Administration after another, and the fund became these 'IOUs.'
This flap about not having the money to pay for Baby Boomer's Social Security is really about not wanting to pay that borrowed money back. As long as the US doesn't default on the Treasury Bonds that comprise the majority of the Social Security Trust Fund, Baby Boomer's Social Security is funded just fine. Of course, we now have a huge deficit, and we have to choose WHO to pay back. Yes, it will need some tinkering, but there is no immediate 'crisis' in Social Security.
Somehow those who are disadvantaged or poor seem to be the ones who get left out when the budget is drawn up, these days.
Remember - back when we invaded Afghanistan, the first thing that was done toward funding that war was to 'borrow' from the Social Security Trust Fund.
quote:
quote: The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
So on Tues. Bush is gung-ho for alternative energy, and promising more research money for it, and less then 48 hours later staff cuts National Renewable Energy Laboratory are announced? What an utter liar! His staff will have to spin faster than a Kerr-Newman black hole to explain this travesty away.
Don't they know there is a rhadamanthine interval between the making of promises in speeches and their obligatory abnegation and gainsaying?? 48 hours is just rude and idiotic.
Sadly, this has been typical. I have gotten to the point of believing when I see the actions on these jokers in Washington.
Talk is cheap, and often used as a narcotic for the masses by these bozos.
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: We played "State of the Union Bingo" (basically, mark a square when the President says the word listed within) and were scoring Bingos within the first five minutes. Talk about your buzzphrase-happy speeches. I think the most egregious offenders this time around were "freedom," "democracy," and "terrorists"- i.e. business as usual.
That sounds like fun, and much better than getting frustrated and upset by more lies and half truths.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People put up with this because they don't want to think of the alternative - that they were wrong to vote for this person. That they made a mistake in judgement. That they were duped.
It must be awefully comforting to be able to categorize people who disagree with you as dupes rather than entertain the possibility that they have valid reasons for disagreeing.
quote:Even if he manages to get these teacher proposals passed, will they get funded? One reason 'no child left behind' doesn't work is because it is underfunded. Many states are near bankruptcy because of the withdrawal of Federal funding for such mandated projects, adding to their already bulging budget responsibilities.
Ths is why the Federal government shouldn't be mandating much of anything to the states.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People put up with this because they don't want to think of the alternative - that they were wrong to vote for this person. That they made a mistake in judgement. That they were duped.
It must be awefully comforting to be able to categorize people who disagree with you as dupes rather than entertain the possibility that they have valid reasons for disagreeing.
I knew you'd be right there for me Dagonee. I'm flattered by your attention.
Bush and his administration have repeatedly said one thing and done another. Not facing that fact is Denial... that Denial is not a river in Egypt.
When a politician tells you they are going to do one thing - to get elected - and then that politician does something entirely different, I'd say those who voted for him were duped. That is what I read 'in between the lines' from most of the posters on this thread. Does anyone else here agree with that?
This is not about 'agreeing or disagreeing' with me. It is about the Bush Administration misleading the American public by not doing what they said they were going to do. It is about broken promices. It is about misrepresentation.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not about 'agreeing or disagreeing' with me.
You're right. It's about your inability to understand that other people have actual reasons for their political choices and have thought them out as well as your ongoing fascination with accusing people of things you have no evidence for.
posted
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, a lot of people voted for Bush. I bet tons of them had "actual reasons" for doing so.
But I still think they were fooled.
I seem to remember you saying that you voted mostly on the abortion topic. Perhaps you weren't fooled; Bush has installed some justices that may choose your way on that particular issue.
But on EVERY SINGLE OTHER issue, Bush has either lied or failed to deliver effective policy. This administration is a catastrophe, and the constant lies are all the patches holding it together.
Yes, millions of voters WERE fooled by Bush's lies. Of course they had reasons for voting the way they did, but their decisions were based on not-fact. Faced with concerns about Gore and Democrats, people voted for Bush, a "uniter not a divider." Do you really think that was true? (You know about Rove's nasty political tactics of discrediting and lambasting opponents. Is that working to bring the country together?)
On Tuesday, faced with overwhelming failures in every policy he created, Bush launched into his State of the Union address and made more empty promises. We're "addicted to oil," he said, vowing to cut oil imports from the Mideast by 75 percent twenty years from now. The very next day, his administration took it back:
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
There's not much you can say about that besides, "fooled again."
What excuse does Bush have for making so few accomplishments? He can't go the same route as Clinton saying that an opposition Congress stonewalled him. Bush's veto pen is pretty much covered in dust by now, and he had an incredibly partisan Congress behind him (What I mean by this is that the Republican voting bloc rarely split). On the issues, Bush has accomplished nothing.
Let's look at the major issues of the last five years:
The War on Terror has been an abysmal failure. More terrorists are recruited today than before Bush took office, especially in Iraq, where people can see the destruction wrought by the American presence. It gives them new reasons to join with the terrorists. We went to war on the dangerous and unprecedented principle of preemptive attack, fearing Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. When it was shown that these justifications for war were false, the justification for war switched to spreading freedom against tyrrany. Bush may say that hindsight is not wisdom, but it certainly provides the justification for much of his policy.
Despite a campaign statement that he wasn't interested in nation-building, Bush has since announced a desire to spread democracy and freedom. So far, Iraq's secular government has moved toward theocracy, Hamas has won the votes of the Palestinian people, Lebanon's government has grown closer to Hezbollah, and at home we lose more freedoms every day as we are subject to unconstitutional and illegal warrantless wiretaps and "free speech zones." It was an absolute lie from the very beginning that terrorists "hated us because of our freedom." But if you want to chalk up one victory to the Bush administration, at least the terrorists can't hate us because of our freedom anymore.
He mentioned the prescription drug benefit, his largest domestic policy so far. With this plan, Bush managed to spend scads of money to actually make it harder for seniors to get their medication.
On Social Security, Bush made an attempt at "saving" it that was so backwards that even his own party couldn't stand behind it. And at the same time, the Social Security trust fund has been looted. And that is what created the 'crisis' in the first place.
The government is currently operating in technical default. The federal debt has gone over the statutory limit around $8.1 trillion, which means we can't pay our international debts back in full on time. Congress may, of course, raise this limit again. In Bush's five years, he has accumulated more debt than EVERY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION PUT TOGETHER. If fiscal conservatives ever supported him, they were fooled big time.
The government response to Hurricane Katrina was a complete failure, and the White House avoided the issue completely in the State of the Union while it denied requests for pertinent documents relating to the investigation of their failed disaster response.
This post's getting pretty long, and I think I've made my point, so I'll wrap it up.
Yes, Americans were fooled by Bush. Yes, they had reasons to vote for him, but those reasons were based on empty promises and lies. It turns out Silkie's right. Bush did say a lot of nice things to get himself elected, but he hasn't lived up to them, and pretty much everybody recognizes that. I guess the people who don't still have the wool over their eyes. If anybody can still formulate thought-out "actual reasons" for supporting Bush's policies, I'd like to see them. I just don't think those reasons exist anymore, now that we've seen what Bush actually does, not just what he says. What person's rationale for voting for Bush has survived the test of time? The only possible way to construct one without admitting you were fooled would be to do it in hindsight. And we all know, hindsight isn't real wisdom.
So when you accuse Silkie, bring out some actual evidence that people have actual reasons for their political choices supporting Bush. Prove that those reasons are not founded in misinformation and empty promises.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the people who don't still have the wool over their eyes.
I deleted my entire response when I got to this point, because it is utterly clear there's no point - a lesson I shold have learned by now about this forum.
quote: If anybody can still formulate thought-out "actual reasons" for supporting Bush's policies, I'd like to see them.
It's clear you wouldn't, which is why I won't bother.
Please do whatever you have to do to comprehend this simple fact: it is possible for people who have not been fooled or had wool pulled over their eyes to not regret voting for Bush.
quote:So when you accuse Silkie, bring out some actual evidence that people have actual reasons for their political choices supporting Bush. Prove that those reasons are not founded in misinformation and empty promises.
"Prove you don't still beat your wife."
Please. It's entirely possible to make all the points you are making without the hubris that those who disagree are blind.
quote:I seem to remember you saying that you voted mostly on the abortion topic.
You remember incorrectly.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember your justification for voting for Bush wrongly, I'm sorry. It's been too long, and my memory of what people say on online message boards is weak. What were your reasons? Do you feel Bush has lived up to your expectations?
I'm not making a "Do you still beat your wife?" argument. If anybody can offer a rational support for Bush, let me hear it. By "Prove that those reasons are not founded in misinformation and empty promises," I meant that I would like to see the evidence of Bush's policies working so well. In my post, I provided some of the evidence of Bush's policies not working well. If I have misrepresented the events of the past five years, let me know so I can correct the error. If I've overlooked some major issues where Bush has succeeded, what are they, and why didn't they appear in the State of the Union address?
quote:I deleted my entire response when I got to this point, because it is utterly clear there's no point - a lesson I shold have learned by now about this forum.
I honestly am interested in what somebody would consider a well thought-out defense of Bush's policies. Because I believe there are major constitutional problems with his philosophy, and I don't understand how he justifies them. I also believe that he intentionally lied to and misled the public unabashedly and repeatedly, and that this led to many failures.
Dagonee, I respect you, your vast knowledge, and your reasoning ability. I regret that I offended you and made you feel like you needed to erase the part of your post I most wanted to see.
If you'll accept my apology and respond to these questions, I'd be very glad to read it. If you feel that it is not worth it, you of course don't need to put any more effort into responding to me, then I've ruined what could have been an insightful and productive conversation.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you'll accept my apology and respond to these questions, I'd be very glad to read it.
Thank you. One caveat: this is designed to outline my thinking. Much of it is conclusory, not because I arrived at these positions without reasoning, but because each conclusion would require a post of this length to even begin to explain.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing any one of them, and am not intending to convince any one. I am presenting these to demonstrate why it is possible to not regret voting for Bush in either election without being blind.
Also, remember the decision who to vote for is not an open field but a choice, between Bush and Gore the first time (I swallowed my revulsion of the campaign finance law and voted for McCain in the primary) and Bush and Kerry the second time. My remarks are in the context of that binary choice.
The best way to sum up my position is that I
1.) favored Bush and opposed his opponent very strongly on several issues,
2.) favored Kerry only slightly on one issue over Bush,
3.) slightly approved of Bush over his opponent on many issues, and
4.) disapproved less of Bush than I disapproved of his opponent on many more issues.
quote:The War on Terror has been an abysmal failure.
I entirely disagree. It's going better than I expected, actually. More details below.
quote:More terrorists are recruited today than before Bush took office, especially in Iraq, where people can see the destruction wrought by the American presence.
People have also begun to see the effect Islamic terrorism is having on Muslims. The insurgents, especially the foreign ones, are becoming more unpopular as time goes on.
quote:It gives them new reasons to join with the terrorists. We went to war on the dangerous and unprecedented principle of preemptive attack, fearing Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
This was not the only reason given, nor was it the reason I supported the invasion. Finding out Sadaam had been playing a double game to make it appear as if he had weapons when he didn't did not surprise me.
quote:When it was shown that these justifications for war were false, the justification for war switched to spreading freedom against tyrrany.
The tyrrany argument was there from the beginning.
quote:Despite a campaign statement that he wasn't interested in nation-building,
1.) 9/11 changed his mind on this.
2.) This is not something Bush campaigned on the second time.
quote:So far, Iraq's secular government has moved toward theocracy
A religious party won a plurality. There will have to be some alliance with secular Shi'a and/or Kurdish parties. It's a far cry from a Theocracy, and there are many signs that it won't become one.
It's worth noting that Iraq's "secular" government was a brutal totalitarian regime.
quote:Hamas has won the votes of the Palestinian people
Yep. Not sure how to blame this on Bush, though. Nor am I sure what any President could have done to stop it.
quote:Lebanon's government has grown closer to Hezbollah,
By some measures - there representation has varied from 12 seats in '92 up to 23 now. At the same time, Hezbollah's non-terrorist activities public benefit have increased. It's not clear if the terrorist activities which they have continued or the charitable activites have attracted more voter support.
Although they joined the government, my understanding is that they were not necessary to the coalition's majority and that this was largely symbolic. I'm not prepared to say developments in Lebanon are either positive or negative at this point. I'm definitely not saying Hezbollah's involvement is good - I think it sucks. But I'm not sure the situation in Lebanon is a net negative.
quote:at home we lose more freedoms every day as we are subject to unconstitutional and illegal warrantless wiretaps
I'm not going into it in depth here, but it is not at all clear that the wiretaps are unconstitutional. There are two issues: 1.) the separation of powers, which is very gray but with strong arguments against the Bush administration's view, and 2.) the fourth amendment issues, in which Bush's view is much stronger than the opposition.
This is one of the fuzziest areas of Constitutional law, and I would like to see SCOTUS clarify. But the interpretations in favor of Bush's policy are strong enough that I consider this akin to Congress passing an unconstitutional law - something to be corrected, not criminalized.
quote:"free speech zones."
"Free speech zones" were instituted in the Clinton administration. I'm not fond of them. Although I don't think every gathering of public officials should have to navigate through a sea of protesters, I'm not a big fan of limiting demonstrations. But it's not a Bush administration phenomenon, and I had no reason to believe Gore (who was VP of the administration which instituted them) or Kerry would have reduced their use. Remember, the Democratic convention in 2004 was "protected" by heavy use of speech zones. Yes, it was a Republican city administration that did so, but I didn't hear Kerry condemning them.
quote:But if you want to chalk up one victory to the Bush administration, at least the terrorists can't hate us because of our freedom anymore.
Because we're so opressed. I mean, people who call Bush a liar and criminal on the Internet are thrown into jail as soon as it happens.
Oh, wait.
quote:He mentioned the prescription drug benefit, his largest domestic policy so far. With this plan, Bush managed to spend scads of money to actually make it harder for seniors to get their medication.
I'm entirely against the prescription drug benefit as passed. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why age, with no showing of need, makes someone eligible for such coverage. But, compared to the other plans being floated, I prefer it.
quote:On Social Security, Bush made an attempt at "saving" it that was so backwards that even his own party couldn't stand behind it. And at the same time, the Social Security trust fund has been looted. And that is what created the 'crisis' in the first place.
I thought Bush couldn't blame Congress?
I favor private accounts. I favor separating the concept of safety net from retirement savings. No one has had the balls to even seriously propose raising the retirement age - something that could give us an extra 40 years of solvency.
Again, I'm stuck with a mediocre choice and a choice I find to totally suck.
quote:The government is currently operating in technical default. The federal debt has gone over the statutory limit around $8.1 trillion, which means we can't pay our international debts back in full on time. Congress may, of course, raise this limit again. In Bush's five years, he has accumulated more debt than EVERY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION PUT TOGETHER. If fiscal conservatives ever supported him, they were fooled big time.
Yep, not real happy about this. I'd like to see some very large spending cuts, especially in areas that should be state functions.
I want the federal government smaller. I had no good choice to make that happen.
quote:The government response to Hurricane Katrina was a complete failure, and the White House avoided the issue completely in the State of the Union while it denied requests for pertinent documents relating to the investigation of their failed disaster response.
Not a campaign issue, so I won't go into it.
On social issues, I utterly oppose the DOM amendment, but the abortion issue is far more important to me than civil gay marriage rights. In addition, there is a serious problem with the way SCOTUS is currently operating, and there are a host of reasons why I prefer a "conservative" judicial interpretive method, even when it runs counter to my policy preferences. Whether Alito or Roberts vote to strike down Casey and Roe (which would require another appointment unless Kennedy flops again), I know enough about their judicial philosophies to know I prefer them to Breyers/Souter/Ginsburg and about half of Stevens.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else here believe that the Bush Administration misled the American public by not doing what they said they were going to do?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Dagonee. I realize that took a lot of time, and I'm glad you put it in.
You mentioned that some of the blame for certain policy failures should lie with Congress, and I agree. I approve of Congress on about the same level as I approve of Bush. I don't think the politicians on either side of the aisle really represent their constituents or the American people as a whole. I don't believe that the Republican base supports the partisanship and vast corruption in the party leadership, and I don't think the relatively gutless and uninspiring Democrats truly represent their following.
quote:No one has had the balls to even seriously propose raising the retirement age - something that could give us an extra 40 years of solvency.
I think somebody should raise this issue. With advances in health making productive life possible longer, I think that this could be a way to mitigate the shortage. Furthermore, I can't really imagine being able to retire when I get to age 55 anyway. The topic will have to come up eventually. I would like to see increased worker protection phased in though. I was disappointed to see Bush make it harder to qualify for overtime pay.
quote:I prefer a "conservative" judicial interpretive method,
quote:2.) the fourth amendment issues, in which Bush's view is much stronger than the opposition.
Do you believe that the 4th Amendment doesn't cover electronic surveillance? Why is Bush's case stronger? (You don't have to answer if this is going to take too long, I imagine it would be pretty involved)
Do you think Bush acted wrongly under the FISA law that prohibits warrantless wiretaps against American citizens instead?
quote:Silkie: Does anyone else here believe that the Bush Administration misled the American public by not doing what they said they were going to do?
I believe that the Bush Administration has misled and lied to Congress, the American people, and the world. I also think they are strong on politics, but weak on policy, meaning that they are good at getting their way through political maneuvers, but that their way is ineffective in the long run.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe that the 4th Amendment doesn't cover electronic surveillance? Why is Bush's case stronger? (You don't have to answer if this is going to take too long, I imagine it would be pretty involved)
Short answer: yes, 4th amendment covers surveillance. In one of the threads on this topic I give a pretty good overview of fourth amendment.
What is questionable is how much the fourth amendment covers calls into and out of the country, especially when intercepted for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence or as part of military operations. There's SCOTUS dicta that suggests (without deciding) that such conversations receive less protection.
Think about customs - everyone can be searched without probable cause when they come into the country. This is only an analogy, but it's an example of how crossing the border can change the analysis.
quote:Do you think Bush acted wrongly under the FISA law that prohibits warrantless wiretaps against American citizens instead?
Depending on things we don't know yet about the program, FISA may not have been able to constitutionally restrict the eavesdropping.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: No one has had the balls to even seriously propose raising the retirement age - something that could give us an extra 40 years of solvency.
I think somebody should raise this issue. With advances in health making productive life possible longer, I think that this could be a way to mitigate the shortage. Furthermore, I can't really imagine being able to retire when I get to age 55 anyway. The topic will have to come up eventually. I would like to see increased worker protection phased in though. I was disappointed to see Bush make it harder to qualify for overtime pay.
The retirement age is being raised. Here is the posting of the schedule for it being raised, from the Social Security Website.
The current retirement age (for full benefits) is 65, not 55. If you retire as early as 62 (the earliest you can retire and collect SS benefits) your benefits are cut, taking into account that you will be collecting benefits over a longer period of time.
I will be 59 this year, and my husband will be 60. Our adjusted Social Security retirement age will be 66. I have been working since I was 15 years old. Even though I cannot 'retire' I am very ready for retirement. Thank goodness my husband is OK with me not working anymore.
As for raising the age further I have this to say..
quote:When 900 years you reach, look as good, you will not. Yoda
posted
67 isn't high enough - that's what I think it needs to be raised from.
The central problem with Social Security is its hybrid nature as both a retirement plan and a social insurance plan. The two functions need to be split, with the social insurance portion being pay as you go and the retirement plan portion being essentially an enforced savings plan based on percentage of salary. I believe Australia has a system like this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 67 isn't high enough - that's what I think it needs to be raised from.
The central problem with Social Security is its hybrid nature as both a retirement plan and a social insurance plan. The two functions need to be split, with the social insurance portion being pay as you go and the retirement plan portion being essentially an enforced savings plan based on percentage of salary. I believe Australia has a system like this.
As someone who has an arthritic knee, a few other health issues, and a Grandchild that I'm helping to raise, I respectfully disagree Dagonee. You have no idea how old 59-60 feels, and how far away 66 - or 67 - is. It feels like I have worked all of my life. You live in a different sphere of this world than I do.
If our system WAS dedicated, with no one allowed to dip into it - we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with Social Security. The Social Security Trust Fund would not have been borrowed from again and again over the years. But greedy politicians - just like the greedy Corporations of today who are cutting Pension Plans - just don't care. A promice isn't sacred anymore.
As for Savings based plans, all possibillities should be examined in a creative way. It's a little late for hubby and me to start a 'retirement savings account' but I don't discount that idea.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As someone who has an arthritic knee, a few other health issues, and a Grandchild that I'm helping to raise, I respectfully disagree Dagonee.
I have a knee I've had to have surgery on twice and some pretty serious chronic conditions.
Besides, the new retirement age wouldn't effect you.
quote:If our system WAS dedicated, with no one allowed to dip into it - we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with Social Security.
Not true. The system still runs out of money sometime in the future even if the IOUs were paid off. It's not fiscally sound if the working population doesn't continue to increase.
quote:As for Savings based plans, all possibillities should be examined in a creative way. It's a little late for hubby and me to start a 'retirement savings account' but I don't discount that idea.
Of course it has to be phased in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
My life expectancy is like 78 years for a non-smoking male. I've been working since I was 15 too (only 6 years ago mind you), and the thought of working another SIXTY years (almost) so I can MAYBE enjoy a little bit of the thousands of dollars I've paid into the SS fund for a year or two before I die doesn't make ANY sense to me. I could save that money aside for the next six decades and buy myself a vacation home before I die to live my life out in.
I realize I'm mostly paying for everyone else, but I see no point to Social Security existing at all if the retirement age is pushed back that far.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd really rather have a society where everybody could retire at around 50 if they wanted to. I wonder what it would take to create that.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here's a very simple thing people need to keep in mind: we can't afford the system as it stands now.
quote:I'd really rather have a society where everybody could retire at around 50 if they wanted to. I wonder what it would take to create that.
A willingness to make people 18-50 work their asses off and sacrifice most of their earnings to support the over 50 people and the under 18 people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Here's a very simple thing people need to keep in mind: we can't afford the system as it stands now.
quote:I'd really rather have a society where everybody could retire at around 50 if they wanted to. I wonder what it would take to create that.
A willingness to make people 18-50 work their asses off and sacrifice most of their earnings to support the over 50 people and the under 18 people.
I think part of this is a change in social structure that has happened in this country since the SS system was initiated. And of course the Baby Boom, my generation, is about to overload a system that was a good one, for the time that it was created. But times have changed. We have few extended families anymore - Great Grandma has her own place, and the cost of supporting that place has risen faster than her income.
A few years ago my mother had a health crisis, and I helped my sister take care of her. Mom was hospitalized for a long time. Of course she lost her job because of her health, and was left with only Social Security to live on: about $500. a month. Try living on that! Mom lived in another state, and I had to travel back and forth, and finally moved her here. Years ago we would have lived in the same town, or nearby. I don't regret making the choices I made, but choices have consequences. I lost my job over fulfilling my personal obligations to my family.
Mom is now in another state (where my sister lives), and in her own place (assisted living) again, but it took a while for that situation to stabilize.
My daughter had a child out of wedlock. She lives with us now, since her income isn't enough to pay for her to live in her own place. She also can't afford childcare, so I'm her childcare, so she can work. Again, choices have consequences. She chose to have her child, and we are helping to raise him. We could have let her be a burden to the system, but we are family, and that means something to us.
My daughter has no health insurance. She works for a national corporation and they make sure she doesn't work enough hours per week to qualify for those benefits. She was offered a 'Health Savings Account' and declined it, since it was a 'use it or lose it' situation - if you don't spend it in the insurance year, you lose all of the saved money in the account. My husband's insurance offers a 'Health Savings Account' that is administered the same way. Most of the Health Savings Accounts that I am aware of are administered that way. But that is another thread.
Working past today's retirement age is nice in theory, but remember, people who are 'too old' are being replaced by younger people all the time. Several years ago my husband was downsized out of a middle management job. A younger man that he had trained was given his job. The job had a new title, and a lower salary. My husband went back to school to get a trade job, which in theory he will not be laid off from, since he is skilled labor.
You don't see retired people working in Grocery Stores for fulfillment - they can't afford to live on just Social Security, and they have to work just to pay household expenses. Even though we will 'retire' at 66, odds are one of us is going to have to have a job, just to be able to pay the utilities and household expenses.
God willing we will still have our health, and be able to live independantly.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
At first I was going to mention, "You can't spell Bullsh$# without Bush" but that's just too cheap a shot.
Silkie, I agree with you that there is a lot of hypocracy in the Bush administration. Heck, he was even verging on caving in on his Abortion policy with his previous Supreme Court nominee--when he was forced to back off. However, slamming the people who voted for him, for good reasons, is not a way to get them to accept your reasoning. Slam me and I go on the defensive too.
My five year old reminds me much of politicians including our President. Today we told Sasha to clean his room. He informed us that he was, but....it sounded exactly like what we hear in regards to alternative energy. "I am, but..."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: ---Silkie, I agree with you that there is a lot of hypocracy in the Bush administration. Heck, he was even verging on caving in on his Abortion policy with his previous Supreme Court nominee--when he was forced to back off. However, slamming the people who voted for him, for good reasons, is not a way to get them to accept your reasoning. Slam me and I go on the defensive too.
I didn't mean to slam anyone who voted for the Bush Administration. If it came across that way to anyone, I am truly sorry.
I am simply saying - in hindsight, given current events, do you NOW think you made a mistake when you voted for Bush et al?
It's hard to let go of an ideal. We all want our government and our Federal officials to live up to the ideals that we were taught in school. But people adminster those laws, and people are fallible.
Do you think that the people in charge of our country let us down?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here's a very simple thing people need to keep in mind: we can't afford the system as it stands now.
quote:I'd really rather have a society where everybody could retire at around 50 if they wanted to. I wonder what it would take to create that.
A willingness to make people 18-50 work their asses off and sacrifice most of their earnings to support the over 50 people and the under 18 people.
I never said you said that, but you said that it should be raised from 67, I inferred a tone in your statement that implied it should be raised much higher than 67, not just 3 more years to 70.
However, if that's the case, I say scrap Social Security all together. I don't see how it is beneficial for me to pay thousands of dollars out of my paycheck for the next 50 years and then maybe get some of that back after I've worked an incredibly long time. I'll probably die shortly after retiring at that age. I can make much better use of that money myself. It's not my fault that other people my age are horrible at saving their money, I don't see why I should have to pay for their lack of financial skill and basic restraint.
And there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of young people being willing to pay MORE than we already do. Everyone I know who is my age and is aware of the Social Security issue is pissed as hell about it. The first candidate I see who offers to nix Social Security has my vote. I refuse to be financially responsible for cleaning up for the messes of the generation before me.
I already have to worry about the foriegn policy screwups, environmental pollution screwups, and deficit/debt screwups for the rest of my life. Social Security is just one more I don't want to deal with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here's a very simple thing people need to keep in mind: we can't afford the system as it stands now.
quote:I'd really rather have a society where everybody could retire at around 50 if they wanted to. I wonder what it would take to create that.
A willingness to make people 18-50 work their asses off and sacrifice most of their earnings to support the over 50 people and the under 18 people.
I never said you said that, but you said that it should be raised from 67, I inferred a tone in your statement that implied it should be raised much higher than 67, not just 3 more years to 70.
However, if that's the case, I say scrap Social Security all together. I don't see how it is beneficial for me to pay thousands of dollars out of my paycheck for the next 50 years and then maybe get some of that back after I've worked an incredibly long time. I'll probably die shortly after retiring at that age. I can make much better use of that money myself. It's not my fault that other people my age are horrible at saving their money, I don't see why I should have to pay for their lack of financial skill and basic restraint.
And there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of young people being willing to pay MORE than we already do. Everyone I know who is my age and is aware of the Social Security issue is pissed as hell about it. The first candidate I see who offers to nix Social Security has my vote. I refuse to be financially responsible for cleaning up for the messes of the generation before me.
I already have to worry about the foriegn policy screwups, environmental pollution screwups, and deficit/debt screwups for the rest of my life. Social Security is just one more I don't want to deal with.
I understand your feelings about that Lyrhawn. When our retirement age of 66 comes we will have paid into Social Security for more than 50 years. At this point we feel like we have been working forever.
Through my childhood and adulthood, my generation was told we were paying into our retirement account - Social Security. Meanwhile the various administrations were dipping into that account. They left us a stack of IOUs. (Treasury Bonds)
If those IOUs are added into the Social Security equation, Social Security is fully funded well past that doomsday date that Bush was bandying about last year - (I forget what that date was... ) The 'crisis' in Social Security is because current administration doesn't want to pay that money back.
As for our children working their backsides off to support us - - - not exactly.
What our children will be doing is working their backsides off to PAY BACK what the politicians took. To PAY BACK all of those IOUs (Treasury Notes) that were left in the drawer when various administrations - including this one - were fiscally irresponsible and ran us into the huge deficit debt we all have. One of the things that bothered me about the war in Iraq is that it's financing ( in part) was from our retirement funds - the Social Security Trust Fund.
And you will be working to pay back the Chinese, and Koreans, and the others that ALSO hold T-notes and have financed our National Debt.
Our National Debt is at the highest point EVER, and the current administration is about to ask for another raise in the debt ceiling.
Maybe what we should ALL look for in a person running for Congress is a willingness to force our country to balance our budget, and a committment to lower the National Debt. We aren't convincing as the savior to the World when we don't take good care of our OWN people here at home.
That is what I liked about our mixed government under Clinton. Whatever his sexual preferences, Clinton kept the spending in check with veto power, unlike our current rubber stamp policy. And the Republican congress back then managed to balance the budget, with those restraints.
Many conservative groups have complained that the current spend spend spend Congress is the antithesis of the Republican ideals.
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: Does anyone else here believe that the Bush Administration misled the American public by not doing what they said they were going to do?
I do, but I've seen no indication that a democrat would have behaved any differently.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
In keeping with your idea about separating the retirement plan from the social insurance plan, I think that we need to reevaluate what retirement means.
At the time Social Security was enacted, people weren't expected to live as long. The retirement age was based on the idea that at a certain age people would be too infirm to continue working, so the "retirement plan" was really intended to take care of people who were infirm because of age. They weren't expected to live very long at that point.
You could get rid of the age limitation and replace it with health stipulations. Perhaps your age could count for a certain number of points toward retirement, but infirmities would have a higher priority. Thus a 35 year old with MS would be eligible ror retirement, but in order to retire without any physical infirmities you'd have to be 80.
MOST people have some physical infirmities, and would retire say, between 65 and 72, with some outliers both younger and older depending on health.
quote:If our system WAS dedicated, with no one allowed to dip into it - we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with Social Security.
quote:Not true. The system still runs out of money sometime in the future even if the IOUs were paid off. It's not fiscally sound if the working population doesn't continue to increase.
That "sometime in the future" is too nebulous for my taste. Pay off the IOUs and we could stop worrying for the most part.
As to the working population increasing, it's generally assumed that that means the younger population, but it doesn't need to be.
As I've pointed out a number of times on this forum, my greatest heroes are two men who worked well into their "retirement years." One was 84 when he got laid off. Between the two of them they had almost 110 years with the same company. And both of them were productive, and a great resource of accumulated knowledge.
The hitch was that they both loved their jobs, in addition to being really good at it. Not everyone is that lucky. But among the lessons they taught me was that loving your job is more important that earning a lot of money.
If only we could convince americans that leisure isn't the greatest pursuit, and also that older workers are still useful. Increasing the working population by putting useful people back to work is a much better proposition than just expecting our children to support us in out old age.
Edit: Is this better? turns out I used a squiggly bracket { instead of a square one [.
[ February 06, 2006, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, is "In keeping with your idea...both younger and older depending on health" part of your own post? The quotes are confusing me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: That "sometime in the future" is too nebulous for my taste. Pay off the IOUs and we could stop worrying for the most part.
You made me do my homework.
Here is a well known economist's analysis of the Social Security "Crisis." I posted an exerpt, but the article is too long to post here, so I have put a link at the bottom if you want to read the whole thing.
quote:Confusions about Social Security By Paul Krugman
The Economists' Voice Volume 2 Issue 1 2005
Summary: There is a lot of confusion in the debate over Social Security privatization, much of it deliberate. This essay discusses the meaning of the trust fund, which privatizers declare either real or fictional at their convenience; the likely rate of return on private accounts, which has been greatly overstated; and the (ir)relevance of putative reductions in far future liabilities. The Trust Fund
Social Security is a government program supported by a dedicated tax, like highway maintenance. Now you can say that assigning a particular tax to a particular program is merely a fiction, but in fact such assignments have both legal and political force. If Ronald Reagan had said, back in the 1980s, "Let's increase a regressive tax that falls mainly on the working class, while cutting taxes that fall mainly on much richer people," he would have faced a political firestorm. But because the increase in the regressive payroll tax was recommended by the Greenspan Commission to support Social Security, it was politically in a different box - you might even call it a lockbox - from Reagan's tax cuts.
The purpose of that tax increase was to maintain the dedicated tax system into the future, by having Social Security's assigned tax take in more money than the system paid out while the baby boomers were still working, then use the trust fund built up by those surpluses to pay future bills. Viewed in its own terms, that strategy was highly successful.
The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now it's 2042. As Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, and others have pointed out, the SSA estimates are very conservative, and quite moderate projections of economic growth push the exhaustion date into the indefinite future.
But the privatizers won't take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it's invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren't really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if that's true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.
But there are two problems with their position. The lesser problem is that if you say that there is no link between the payroll tax and future Social Security benefits - which is what denying the reality of the trust fund amounts to - then Greenspan and company pulled a fast one back in the 1980s: they sold a regressive tax switch, raising taxes on workers while cutting them on the wealthy, on false pretenses. More broadly, we're breaking a major promise if we now, after 20 years of high payroll taxes to pay for Social Security's future, declare that it was all a little joke on the public. The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security's future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it's just part of the federal budget: there can't be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it's hard to make the case that it will be central.
But those who insist that we face a Social Security crisis want to have it both ways. Having invoked the concept of a unified budget to reject the existence of a trust fund, they refuse to accept the implications of that unified budget going forward. Instead, having changed the rules to make the trust fund meaningless, they want to change the rules back around 15 years from now: today, when the payroll tax takes in more revenue than SS benefits, they say that's meaningless, but when - in 2018 or later - benefits start to exceed the payroll tax, why, that's a crisis. Huh? I don't know why this contradiction is so hard to understand, except to echo Upton Sinclair: it's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary (or, in the current situation, his membership in the political club) depends on his not understanding it. But let me try this one more time, by asking the following: What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefits payments exceed payroll tax revenues? The answer, very clearly, is nothing. The Social Security system won't be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning. Now it's true that rising benefit costs will be a drag on the federal budget. So will rising Medicare costs. So will the ongoing drain from tax cuts. So will whatever wars we get into. I can't find a story under which Social Security payments, as opposed to other things, become a crucial budgetary problem in 2018. What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis? It's interesting to ask what would have happened if the General Fund actually had been run responsibly - which is to say, if Social Security surpluses had been kept in a "lockbox", and the General Fund had been balanced on average. In that case, the accumulating trust fund would have been a very real contribution to the government as a whole's ability to pay future benefits. As long as Social Security surpluses were being invested in government bonds, they would have reduced the government's debt to the public, and hence its interest bill. We would, it's true, eventually have reached a point at which there was no more debt to buy, that is, a point at which the government's debt to the public had been more or less paid off. At that point, it would have been necessary to invest the growing trust fund in private-sector assets. This would have raised some management issues: to protect the investments from political influence, the trust fund would have had to be placed in a broad index. But the point is that the trust fund would have continued to make a real contribution to the government's ability to pay future benefits. And if we are now much less optimistic about the government's ability to honor future obligations than we were four years ago, when Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes to avoid excessive surpluses, it's not because Social Security's finances have deteriorated - they have actually improved (the projected exhaustion date of the trust fund has moved back 5 years since that testimony.) It's because the General Fund has plunged into huge deficit, with Bush's tax cuts the biggest single cause. I'm not a Pollyanna; I think that we may well be facing a fiscal crisis. But it's deeply misleading, and in fact an evasion of the real issues, to call it a Social Security crisis. The Economists' Voice Article, Archived
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm flattered by your attention.
