| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 9:32 pm: | 
|
Funny (sort of) recent interview.
The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?
The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --
THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.
The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?
The Post: You used partial privatization.
THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?
The Post: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
The Post: To describe it.
THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?
The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.
THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?
The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Oy! |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
boring. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3015
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
It was matched and beaten by Rahm Emanuel on Meet the Press and the Democrats plan for Social Security. I will give Rahm this -- he was more eloquent in his stammering to make it look coherent, but when you get down to it they don't have a plan nor the courage to say "raise taxes and cut benefits until we have to do it again" and keep this mess moving on down the road to ultimate collapse. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 596
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
when you get down to it they don't have a plan nor the courage to say "raise taxes and cut benefits until we have to do it again" and keep this mess moving on down the road to ultimate collapse.
It's admittedly not as good a plan as "Hope to find a box containing $2 trillion dollars," but I'd say it's a tad more realistic. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
Not so, Madden. When the riots begin, it will be easy to find 2 trillion bucks stashed away in the ugly clots of McMansions dotting the country. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3016
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
There will be no riots, as retirement benefits will be as good or better than what we have now, you can pass along unused assets to your family at death and build wealth, and you'll eliminate the financial drag on the US Govt that Social Security has become (in addition to a nice little slush-fund for government spending). |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 976
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
yeah, that $1,000 a year they're limiting the accounts to is gonna make me RICH!
as long as I don't go and live too long
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 252
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
We need $2 Trillion Dollars for Social Security?
Wait a minute, isn't that the total of the Bush deficits over the last four years? Just asking. . . |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3017
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
That $1K for the accounts is just go get our nose in the tent. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 601
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
There will be no riots, as retirement benefits will be as good or better than what we have now
It's official, folks...it is not possible to lose money investing in the stock market. But just in case you're still worried, cjc is guaranteeing your investments will be profitable. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
As a matter of fact, I've read the government can take out insurance policies quite cheaply on each account to guarantee it against loss.
They can make it so even Madden can't lose money by employing the least intricate and most conservative investing strategies. I can see the ads now. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 605
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
As a matter of fact, I've read the government can take out insurance policies quite cheaply on each account to guarantee it against loss.
And which fairy tale book did you read that in? So I can invest my money any way I want, and if my stocks tank, the government bails me out. How is this more cost-efficient than Social Security again?
I can't wait to see insurance companies falling all over themselves to pay those claims. What a brilliant plan for retirement...leave it in the hands of the insurance companies!  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3028
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:33 pm: |
|
Weeellll.....insurance policies based on widely accepted and conservative investing styles covering a long period of time are possible. And no, Madden, there are no plans afoot to allow you to pile all your money into a few, risky vehicles. If that were the case, I doubt the polls currently backing private accounts would be as they are if they had all foolishly invested solely in issues such as Enron, Global Crossing (to be bipartisan about this) or the like.
But you knew that, right? Or were you at the juice and cracker table when the rest of the class covered the material? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 607
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Weeellll.....insurance policies based on widely accepted and conservative investing styles covering a long period of time are possible. And no, Madden, there are no plans afoot to allow you to pile all your money into a few, risky vehicles.
But...but...but...it's MY MONEY! George Bush said so! I know how to invest my money better than that dumb ol' government! They oughta keep their noses outta my business! Florida swampland, here I come!
If that were the case, I doubt the polls currently backing private accounts would be as they are
Uh, polls like this one?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polls/2005012/q2_3/age/index.html
In case you missed a class or two yourself, 38% approval is BAD, not GOOD. That means more people DISAPPROVE than APPROVE.
Got a nice cup of juice right here waiting for you.  |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 978
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Ugh. I've heard of the spouts the administration plants to further its agenda to benefit Big money, and I am now convinced that cjc is a bona-fide spout sprout. How much are you getting to seed this and other boards with your alarming then soothing hyperbole?
Unfortunately, I enjoy a slightly higher than normal intelligence(IMO) and can spot it a mile away - that means roughly half this country's population can't see through this and will continue to blindly follow the prescribed doctrine.
It's very sad and disheartening to know that there is a class of people who think they're more entitled than other just as hard-working human beings. Those that might not be smart enough to know how to work the system, or plain don't know how to read thanks to poor schools and an uncaring populace.
Yes, I know, I know. It's Gnirob, right Warts?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3030
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
I'm not big on anyone being entitled to anything past what's in the Constitution -- be they hard-working or otherwise.
Madden -- the part of the poll you seem to have missed is this:
""Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire. But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration."
I'll take any kind of name calling or disapproval long as this idea takes root and the program is fixed.
As for insurance of investment returns, I answered your question, but I forgot you weren't looking for an answer to your question. Neither are Democrats looking for an answer to the impending failure of Social Security. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 610
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
I'm not big on anyone being entitled to anything past what's in the Constitution -- be they hard-working or otherwise.
Well, it's a teeny bit more complicated than that. Ask a woman or a black person whether the Constitution covers all the important bases.
But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.
The truth is, we have no idea what the Bush "plan" is. They won't tell. But there's a big difference between cutting guaranteed benefits and reducing the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits. As usual, it's all in the phrasing of the poll question.
I'll take any kind of name calling or disapproval long as this idea takes root and the program is fixed.
Well, I'm not sure there's a connection between the two, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Just ask House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas:
Speaking two days before Bush's second inauguration, Thomas said Bush's plan as it has been described "cannot, given the politics of the House and the Senate," win passage in both chambers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19257-2005Jan18.html
As for insurance of investment returns, I answered your question, but I forgot you weren't looking for an answer to your question.
You didn't answer my question. Yes, I believe there is such a thing as insuring investment returns. That's not the question. The question is, does the government trust people with their own money or not? If so, they should insure any investment an American makes with his private account. If not, then why are they lying about it?
Neither are Democrats looking for an answer to the impending failure of Social Security.
Excuse me, but Social Security is every bit the impending crisis that Saddam Hussein was.
Economist Max Sawicky, in a WSJ online debate with Arnold Kling, explains it all:
I'm pleased to note Arnold's immediate disclaimer of crisis rhetoric, as far as Social Security is concerned. But he wants to roll it back in, under the broader rubric of "government promises to future retirees in the middle of this century": in other words, the federal budget as a whole.
My response is that Arnold is whistling past the graveyard. As President Bush says, the crisis is now. I would amend this slightly to say the crisis is President Bush. Budget trends over the next 10 years under Mr. Bush's policies are unsustainable, as Lee Price and I explain in "The Budget Arithmetic Test." An obsession with a program shortfall in 2042 that is smaller (as a share of GDP) than the deficit right in front of our face amounts to a huge distraction, especially when compounded by the worrisome trade deficit.
http://tinyurl.com/3llxc
Social Security is like Iraq, and the deficit is like al-Qaida. And once again, this administration's priorities are exactly backwards. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3032
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Hopeless. I've been tulip-ed. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Wow!!! I'm a verb!!! I knew if I tried hard enough, I'd be famous someday... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3035
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
.....well, if you want to talk about articles of speech related to names..... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1946
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Oh, ha, ha, ha
Guess I'll have to change my name. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 611
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Hopeless. I've been tulip-ed.
You mean proven wrong? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3039
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Not at all. Just that a discussion is pointless with you, in my estimation. Insuring anything against a devastating and unusual occurence doesn't mean you think the person is incapable, and to take that tack as a point of "aha!" is intellectually dishonest or something else that isn't flattering to say about someone.
That's why it's hopeless. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 614
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Insuring anything against a devastating and unusual occurence doesn't mean you think the person is incapable, and to take that tack as a point of "aha!" is intellectually dishonest or something else that isn't flattering to say about someone.
That's why it's hopeless.
Well, maybe you wouldn't feel so hopeless if you stuck to what we're actually talking about, instead of throwing up some ridiculous strawman because you're unable to support your point.
I never said that insuring investments was a sign of the government's lack of faith in our investing skills. I'm saying that there are investments that the government WILL NOT insure, for obvious reasons. And if they want these kinds of restrictions on our private accounts, that's tantamount to saying that they don't trust the American people's financial judgment, and rightly so, in my opinion. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to sell this privatization scheme with the slogan "You know how to spend your money better than the government does." |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page