posted on February 20, 2005 05:10:03 AM new
HaHa! All the backs up this morning....so predictable....but I'm glad to know my posts and what I say are so much more important than what linduh says or even what bush says.....two nasty , nasty people who say nasty things like
"""....."Just as those who don't plan for their retirement will and do have to rely on only SS to survive. And it's just barely enough to live on. But who's rescuing those who spend any funds they've saved for retirement and spent those funds? No one....it's called too bad...should have planned better. Now you have to suffer the consequences. ""
But I get all the attention....linduh must be green with envy.
The lala twins couldn't answer my questions, played possum, but I knew I could smoke 'em out and I did. Now I know they just can't answer the pertinent questions.
Like how can you be self-reliant when you're collecting your husband's SS check.
posted on February 20, 2005 10:55:42 AM new
You have given me NO pertinent questions to answer just gobbledygook. Like always..
When you talk about saving and not having anything when someone retires are you speaking for yourself? Can't you manage your own funds? Well probably not as you seem to be fixated on SS which will probably not be around when you retire if it stays the same.
posted on February 20, 2005 10:57:10 AM new
Hey crow I didn't miss your point about all these so called self-reliant people like linda K and Libra. They are so against any government program that helps people in trouble. That is until something bad happens to them or their families. When misfortune falls on them they are the first to run to the government or anyone else for help. I am sure that was the point you were making about a person becoming very ill. They are just like this White House they speak with forked tongue. They go back and forth with what they say. You stay on point, you say what is on your mind without pulling punches. Keep it up I like honest straight talking people.
My good wife read some of linda's and libras post this morning she just laughed. After that she reminded me of how lucky I am for not being married to a woman with their mind set.
I believe both have been so active lately because both are finding it harder and harder to support this White House.
posted on February 20, 2005 10:58:28 AM new
Pertinent question: crowfarm I am not collecting my husbands SS check I am collecting my own and if something happens to him I still will be collecting my own...
posted on February 20, 2005 11:09:42 AM new
OMG you have a wife!!!!!!!!!!! I bet she is really proud of you when you go selling your antiques and charge the Republicans 3x the money. That is something to be proud of. Do you scream at her like you do on this board.
Well crowfarm you now have a follower. He even thinks for you. I bet you are jumping up and down. He says you stay on point and yes I must confess you do you with your language unbecoming a women and your continual bashing of Linda and her finances. It must be great to have a follower like bigpeepa.
Again I will say it bigpeepa you do not know my mind set so get over it. Did you show your "loving wife" what crowfarm posted about Linda. I bet you didn't.
posted on February 20, 2005 01:37:47 PM newI do believe you're also suffering from a classic case of 'delusions of grandeur'.
Looks like someone else is suffering from "delusions of grandeur":
Linda_K posted on February 15, 2005 07:39:12 AM
Speaking of 'famous' people from IN....David Letterman is another. Here's a list of some others. http://www.50states.com/bio/indiana.htm....but for some reason MY name was left off the list.
I think the only David Letterman list Linda will ever make is the "Top Ten Bush Sockpuppets" List
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 20, 2005 06:21:53 PM new
By Jeff Manza, acting director of the Institute for Policy Research and associate professor of sociology at Northwestern University
Published February 20, 2005
Everywhere we look there is a crisis: our public schools, the environment, world terrorism, the government budget deficit, Medicare, the balance of trade deficit, traditional values, civil rights, corporate social responsibility, job creation, the family and, of course, the Social Security system. To hear President Bush talk, the system of public old-age pensions is on the verge of "bankruptcy" unless sweeping reforms are adopted.
The Social Security debate is only the most recent example of a recurrent rhetorical strategy used by enterprising politicians and political elites. The use of crisis rhetoric runs the gamut of the political spectrum: It is a truly bipartisan phenomenon.
For the Christian right, the most important crises involve traditional family values.
In the business community, the tax code and budget deficits evoke fears of system breakdown.
In the political center, the focus is on matters to do with efficiency and administration, on the need to "make government work."
For the Marxist left, the capitalist world economy is always in a state of crisis, always on the verge of breakdown.
Everyone seems to agree that the state of public schools and the threat from world terrorism each constitute a crisis, perhaps one of the reasons we get a higher-than-usual level of bipartisan agreement on the need for "educational reform" and to fight a global war on terror.
Why is "crisis" rhetoric so common?
Perhaps everything really is in a state of terrible crisis. Perhaps we are indeed on the verge of collapse.
A more plausible explanation is that crisis rhetoric allows political entrepreneurs room for maneuvering they might not otherwise have. A crisis requires immediate action. Old dogmas have to be rethought. Long-standing ways of doing things have to be overturned. Entrenched interests or beliefs must change.
But the rhetorical use of "crisis" is itself in crisis.
It is well-known among psychologists that efficient cognitive processing and decision-making decline when panic sets in. So too with the rhetoric of crisis. We debate the terms of policy proposals differently and easily can be compelled into thinking that "doing something" is necessary, whether it is really required or not.
The case of Social Security highlights the problems of such rhetoric.
The president and his supporters have done a great job in convincing the public--even sophisticated observers who should know better--that unless we enact drastic reforms, the entire Social Security system will collapse. According to polls, many Americans no longer believe Social Security will remain capable of providing them benefits when they retire.
That crisis rhetoric is at best inaccurate, and indeed, the president and his advisers have had to clarify that their proposed plan will not fix the financing crisis they have spent so much time talking about.
While Social Security may require some tinkering, no reputable independent analyst has concluded that Social Security's problems cannot be fixed with modest tax increases or changes in the benefit formula (such as raising the retirement age slightly), or some combination thereof. Such small reforms have been undertaken several times since Social Security was first adopted in 1935 and always proved sufficient.
Why would the current situation be any different?
Interestingly enough, the historical record shows that all earlier predictions of Social Security's impending "crisis" did not pan out. Previous long-run projections about the system have significantly understated long-term economic growth and exaggerated the system's vulnerability. They have always understated economic and job growth.
That's not to say there is no viable case for a debate about a significant reform of Social Security, such as the president's proposal for privatization. I'm skeptical about that proposal, but to have a meaningful debate about it requires that we strip away the sense of urgency that "crisis" rhetoric entails.
Instead of asking whether the Bush reforms will "save" Social Security, we should be asking who will be helped and who will be hurt by such reforms. Are the high costs of transitioning to a new system affordable? Are those costs worth paying? How substantial are the risks in moving to individual accounts?
These are complicated questions, but they can be debated without a doom-and-gloom scenario hanging over the discussion.
Exaggerated claims of crisis frequently result in policies we later come to regret.
Take how the inordinate fears of drug use led to policies that fill America's prisons and have no discernible impact on drug use. The vast expansion of drug-related incarceration has wrecked individual lives and families and cost taxpayers enormous sums.
But drug use is essentially unchanged 20 years after the Reagan administration launched the current war on drugs.
The rhetoric of crisis also blinds us to cases of success. Most Americans don't know that in recent years many urban public school systems have improved their performance--despite the increasingly diverse population that those schools must educate. Bombarded by claims of failing schools, we may move too quickly into endless reform efforts--ones that are implemented too hastily to have any beneficial impact and may even be counterproductive.
Similarly, the very successes of the war on terrorism--in which U.S. military strength has destroyed Al Qaeda training camps and pushed the war on terror into the domain of ideas--is not reflected in public debate. We behave as if the threat of terror is as strong today as it was in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. We throw money and force at a problem that no longer seriously exists, instead of changing our image around the world that motivates terrorists in the first place.
In the end, Social Security may indeed need some tinkering. Urban public schools are far from ideal, and continuing efforts to improve them are vital. Terrorism, even if rooted in local groups unconnected with another, will remain a threat.
The U.S. cannot go on running a balance of trade deficit at its current level forever. We need to continue to analyze such problems and think critically about policy and political reforms that would make things better--but without invoking panic and fear.
While a moratorium on the use of "crisis" in political rhetoric would be welcome, its use may simply be too tempting for enterprising reformers (of whatever ideological stripe) to give it up. But if citizens at least recognize such claims for what they are--manipulative rather than analytical--more informed, sober public debates might follow.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 20, 2005 06:24:36 PM new
By William Neikirk, Tribune senior correspondent based in Washington, D.C., who writes about economics
Published February 20, 2005
The other night, I couldn't sleep. So I picked up President Bush's new budget in the hope that it would cure my insomnia. It was riveting. I didn't fall asleep until an hour before daybreak.
You must think I'm nuts. There was no sex or violence in it. There was no intriguing mystery, no stirring drama of human exploration, no thrilling plot involving spies or government corruption or things getting blown to smithereens, no rags-to-riches comeback involving horses, dogs or people.
No, what kept me awake was the odd combination of comedy and tragedy that this slick, bulky document evoked (377 pages, plus 239 accompanying pages of specific program reductions). The humor came from its sheer bravado, the tragedy from its virtual omission of the magnitude of the potential fiscal nightmare awaiting us in the next decade or two.
It reminded me of a 1998 movie, the title of which I will not mention here because it might seem a bit pejorative, in which a giant asteroid the size of Texas is on a collision course with Earth. Deep-core driller Bruce Willis and his team are dispatched on a mission to save the planet by nuking the projectile.
In reading Bush's budget document, I thought, "Where is Bruce Willis when we need him?"
I wanted to see a Hollywood-style plan for dealing with a lurking deficit danger the size of which we can't fully comprehend at the moment.
Alan Greenspan is retiring soon. He can't help. Reagan-era budget director David Stockman is too old for this stuff. Paul O'Neill is persona non grata at the White House.
The budget left out spending for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It omitted a costly fix of a once-obscure tax called the alternative minimum tax, which is snaring more and more middle-income Americans. It did not include the future transition costs for partially privatizing Social Security.
There was no mention of how expensive his tax reductions would be in the next decade, no solid evaluation of Medicare's future costs (a program in worse shape than Social Security), and no deficit projections beyond 2010. Why were these left out? Is it because the asteroid is not close enough?
Yet transition costs for Social Security private accounts could cost well over $1 trillion in the next decade. Extending Bush's tax cuts could add $1.4 trillion more. New tax incentives to get people to save more money could cost $300 billion to $500 billion. Fixing the alternative minimum tax would reduce revenue by as much as $700 billion. Medicare costs are soaring so fast that no one can figure how much it will take.
"The only way to get the long-term deficit under control is by fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," said Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "The fiscal hole in Medicare is six times larger than the hole in Social Security."
Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a group devoted to budget issues, made this observation when I asked him whether there is anything to be frightened about: "It is pretty frightening if you are going to be paying taxes 20 years from now. The forces that are building here are all bad. They will lead to big deficits and slower economic growth."
With these words, I was sorely tempted to put in a call to Bruce Willis' agent. But something Riedl said stopped me. Bush deserves some credit for taking on some sacred cows in the budget, he said, and is beginning to fulfill a campaign promise to curtail spending.
"The impression I get is that the administration seems to be beginning by getting at the low-hanging fruit in order to build momentum for dealing with the much tougher entitlement programs," he said. "To that extent, it is delaying the hard work ahead."
So I began thumbing through some specific budget cuts he recommended. There was a moratorium on federal prison construction (overcrowding has dropped from 39 to 35 percent). He proposed a slashing of federal Medicaid funds to the states (the governors have been cheating the federal government on reimbursement procedures). He whacked farm support subsidizes after authorizing them in 2002.
And he put his foot down on Amtrak: no more federal subsidies for this "flawed" railroad, as his administration puts it. It's fine to let Amtrak fall into bankruptcy, the budget said. That would yield efficiencies that the railroad system does not have, it said.
A dedicated budget hawk like myself has to admire this courageous stand, but it must be mentioned that this is not the first time a federal budget document has recommended taking away Amtrak's subsidy. If the politics work the way they have in the past, Amtrak is likely to survive again with full funding.
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) tickled my funny bone. He blasted Bush for a budget that didn't do much about the deficit and ignored the large future costs I've just outlined. But he got really hot over one thing, saying Bush is doing a really bad thing in trying to cut Amtrak's subsidy. Austerity never hurts in the abstract. Politicians lose their boldness when the budget ax strikes home.
But for all of Bush's seriousness of purpose, what makes this exercise in budget-cutting so amusing is this: In relation to the deeper deficit reductions that will be required in the future, they seem more like a small meteorite crashing silently in some lonely desert, not that Texas-size asteroid.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the prospect that the deficit is about to put a big hurt on all of us. It is too easy to lay all the blame on Bush or members of Congress. The deficit to most people means nothing. Some economists and politicians think it's no problem at all.
In fact, usually we don't throw a hissy fit about the budget until the money is taken away. Can we expect politicians to be courageous when we are all in denial?
Where's the phone? "Hello, Mr. Willis, you don't know me but . . . "
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 20, 2005 06:39:21 PM newMy good wife read some of linda's and libras post this morning she just laughed. After that she reminded me of how lucky I am for not being married to a woman with their mind set.
So...what you saying bigpeepa? That your wife finds it appropriate for CF to continue to bring up my sex life after my husband died? You're saying she thinks it's just fine that CF has wished injury and death upon my son's life....a Marine who served his country well? And now that I've been wished illness/injury because CF doesn't like my political views....YOUR WIFE thinks that's all okay?
I seriously doubt you are telling the truth....but IF she has seen all CFs hateful and wishing harm upon me and mine....then she DESERVES you...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 06:31:21 AM newTypical liberal response/solution...
Like Bush has come up with a real plan yet. He to busy spending spending and spending more money that our kids will have to pay off. I wonder how many more taxes will need to be increased in 10 years to pay off Dubya's budgets.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on February 21, 2005 06:47:36 AM new
linduh says, ""So...what you saying bigpeepa? That your wife finds it appropriate for CF to continue to bring up my sex life after my husband died? You're saying she thinks it's just fine that CF has wished injury and death upon my son's life....a Marine who served his country well? And now that I've been wished illness/injury because CF doesn't like my political views....YOUR WIFE thinks that's all okay? ""
Yes, I bet she does because SHE could see where I was using these as extreme examples to someone as bone-headed as you, linduh, to see what a nasty-ass old, soul-dead neonazi you are.
She could also read where you believe torture is fine and the American elderly should rot if they're not rich.
AND with my comments I proved something else.....when I ask pointed questions of you like, " how can you be self-reliant if you get your husband's SS money"
posted on February 21, 2005 06:56:27 AM new
I have a better plan. Get rid of SS and let everyone fend for themselves. See how much you will invest in your future. If you think SS is not going to run out you had better open your eyes to the fact that most in here if it is left alone will not collect a SS check.
When the ratio is 1 working to support 1 SS pension then it is time to quit and that is going to happen sooner than later. Approximately 13 more years.
posted on February 21, 2005 07:01:16 AM newBeen in the gin barrell to long.
Is Gin actually made in a barrel? Huh.. I didn't know that...learn something new every day here on the RT! Not that I like Gin..it tastes like buzzard puke imo.. but still, that is interesting to know, about the barrel, that is..
posted on February 21, 2005 07:57:01 AM new
I've never seen anyone as cold-hearted, nasty, nazi like as linduh who thinks the elderly of our country should be left to rot and poor children left to starve.
Still can't answer that self-reliance question ???
Do you give away that SS check linduh? Good old self-reliant YOU just sends the check back,, right?
posted on February 21, 2005 08:56:37 AM new
SSHHHH! Classic, linduh and libra fell asleep over their knitting and are taking their naps....have a little respect !
...at least not in his last few posts.
How about every minute of every waking hour. I've never seen anyone as miserable in my life as CF is.