| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5244
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 2:06 pm: | 
|
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?050124ta_talk_hertzberg
Even if you disagree that society has duties to its members, you have to face the disengenuous of the administration for calling this a crisis and for misrepresenting the facts. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Tom,
I agree with you that this isn't a crisis and that the administration is being a little disengenuous. However, they are politicians and if their lips are moving......you know the rest. However, with that said, it doesn't matter to me. The current admin is going to play the typical political games to help push their agenda. I agree with where they are going so I don't mind if they do a little scare-mongering for the masses. This is nothing new to politics and should come as no surprise. All previous admins did the same thing on different topics. I realize you don't agree with the end result as I do but we both understand the game of politics. I really wish this admin would take on the tax system. Luckily, I now live in a low tax area but I'm sure that a lot of my friends in Maplewood have either entered or are about to enter into the world of the AMT which is mind boggling that normal everyday middle America would be in that situation. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 639
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Southerner,
I have to say, until this post (actually one line in it), I had quite a bit of respect for you. I might not agree with all your positions (I do agree with some), but this one line really tore it for me:
quote:I agree with where they are going so I don't mind if they do a little scare-mongering for the masses.
Now, I am not naive to how politics works. But I don't condone it. And though you declare otherwise in other parts of your commentary, that is what you do when you say that the ends justify the means. At what point is it not ok to do scare mongering? What if that scare mongering leads to racially motivated crimes? What if it leads to people agreeing to restrictions in their rights based on unfounded allegations and lies? At what point do we say "No, it's NOT ok to lie to us just to push your agenda through."
I get the feeling you just throw your hands up and say "well, that's the way it is." That is a very regressive way of thinking. Imagine if (pick your minority) decided that it just wasn't worth fighting for what's right? Imagine if some men hadn't agreed it would be a god idea to let women vote? Imagine if some white folks hadn't agreed that it was a good idea to let black folks vote? Imagine if some land owners hadn't bucked the system and said "you know, maybe those people who don't own land like we do really should have a say in things."
You're saying "That's just the way it is." I'm reminded of a Bruce Hornsby song.
The Way It Is
Bruce Hornsby & The Range
Standing in line marking time-
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor ladies' eyes
Just for fun he says "get a job"
CHORUS
That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them
They say hey little boy you can't go
Where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules
He said, Son
CHORUS
Well they passed a law in '64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law don't change another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar
CHORUS |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Rastro,
Aren't you taking this a little to far. You must take this board a whole lot more serious than I do. I knew my term "scare mongering" would get someones dander up. If you can't see that this is just politics as usual then what can I do. Don't you remember the previous admin telling us how our healthcare system is falling apart and that all the childern are going to get sick and die because we don't have universal healthcare? I do, and those tactics were laughable then and they are now as well. It's just politics. I surely don't agree with it but it will be going on long after I'm dead and buried. The only place we disagree is on the merits of the plan. I know you and a lot of others don't like the plan. I do like the plan and expect this admin to do what it takes politically to get it passed. If your side would have won the election then I'm sure you would have wanted them to get your agenda passed.
As for you respecting me, of course, I would like to be respected but if your going to take one thing I've typed and turn it into your litmus test then that's fine. Personally, I have never and would never disrespect someone on this board. The reason I check it out is to get different opinions on different topics. While I lived in Maplewood I came to respect the people and their way of life. Although I disagree on a lot of political issues (which is healthy for democracy) I understand that both sides want the best for this country. Maybe some day we'll get a Pres that both sides like but since the whole system is money driven I doubt it. Sorry if I got your blood boiling but I'm just giving my opinion. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 641
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Southerner,
A couple of things. First, I don't have a side. Though I dislike Bush, I'm not a Democrat. I have never been, since the first time I was eligible to vote, the Demcorats put up Mondale as a candidate. Then Dukakkis?!? And I tend to agree with many Republican principles. Interestingly, this President doesn't seem to be a traditional Republican, especially his fiscal ineptitude.
As for the merits of the plan, since none has formally been proposed, I'll reserve judgement. I admitted on a previous thread that while I am not opposed to private accounts, perhaps my distaste for Bush caused me to react more strongly that I should have.
As for my comment above, I think what got me was the blaise attitude about the level to which the administration is stretching the truth (or outright lying). I don't disagree that private accounts would be nice. In fact, that's why I have several. And I'm not completely opposed to privatizing, to some degree, the Social Security program. But there are several aspects of what they're telling us that is simply untrue, or lets us believe what they want, without actually coming out and saying it. For example, the implication that there would be a significant amount of personal control over the accounts.
My reaction was not to your politics. I can respect soimeone else's political point of view, even if I don't agree with it. Maybe what you said was a flip comment that I was overly sensitive to. but if you truly do believe that that is the way things are, and they can't (or won't) change, then you've given up on ever hearing the truth. I don't trust politicians. But I want to. I want to be able to. but unelss we start demanding it of them, we're giving them the green light to lie to us, or tell us what we want to hear, or tell us one thing and do another.
In short, it's not your political opinion that I took issue with. It's the way you simply accept that it's just the way it is, and we can't change it.
I'm not an independent because I'm politically uninterested. I'm an independent because politicians are slimeballs, and I don't want to be associated with any of them. And that is precisely why we have to constantly call them on their lies. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, whatever. A lie is a lie, no matter who tells it.
As for disrespect, maybe I'm too old to understand what that means as a verb. I wouldn't say I (whatever the negative of respect is - is that disrepect?) you. Let's say I'm a neutral, where before I was positive. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5259
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Southerner, you seem to be commenting on my very short comment, not on Hertzberg's commentary which I linked to. It explains why this is a bad deal for society. I'm interested in your thoughts on Hertzberg's reasons.
It won't take long to read, I promise. I'll buy you a beer if you get through it and offer some reflection. |
mjc
Citizen
Username: Mjc
Post Number: 185
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
For public values, I think Hertzberg is in just the right place about social contract (or whatever you want to call it). Well and briefly put.
As a partisan, I loved "Wall Street Journal, the parish bulletin of the nonevangelical wing of his political base." 
thanks for posting it, Tom (hoping to hear from Southerner, conservative but congenial, about the content) |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
 |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I think we basically agree. I consider myself a conservative independent who like you doesn't hold politicians in high regard. My comment was indeed flippant but honest. I hope that politicians begin telling the truth one day but I doubt it. Do I think this admin is stretching the truth - you bet they are. Should they do it? No. Is that pretty much the only way to get things done in DC? Unfortunately yes. Let me mention my fellow Georgian - Jimmy Carter. He was probably the last guy in the White House who actually tried to tell the truth and accomplish things above board. And he paid for it dearly and is regarded as a terrible President. Now, while me and Jimmy are on opposite sides on many issues I believe he is a man of integrity and honesty. However, he was unable to get things done and thus has been evaluated as doing a poor job. In my opinion all Presidents since have realized this approach, unfortunately, won't work. None of them wants to be the butt of jokes and remembered like Carter. Reagan and Clinton were cut from the same cloth. Both were charismatic and politically savvy. They did what it took to get things done whether you agreed or disagreed. Our current President is doing the same thing. He's just not quite the charmer that Reagan or Clinton was but none the less he's still a politician.
Tom,
I re-read the article. What do you want me to say. He's a smart guy who lays out the facts to support his premise. I agree with a lot of what he is saying. However, I don't see where a little privatization will hurt (this is where we disagree but I respect your view).
I know you like to post links and articles. I, however, much prefer to get other regular folks opinions from this board. All of us could find articles that support our position. That's relatively easy. How many court proceedings have had dueling "experts". I read many of your links but that doesn't really sway matters as I know all publications have their own agenda. It seems that quite often when a staunch conservative links to a more conservative publication then the publication gets slammed and the article is dismissed for being biased. The same goes for liberal publications. This is why I like to check this board for opinion not for just links. I know your just trying to bolster your position but his board isn't a debating competition. It's a friendly discussion (most of the time) on why people believe what they believe which is why it is interesting. I don't understand why a lot of posters get so upset when posting. This is just a small town message board. We're not setting U.S. policy here. We're just discussing issues in which each of us has the power through our vote to change for the better. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3281
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
"(t)his board isn't a debating competition"
Are you kidding? It most certainly IS.
"This is just a small town message board. We're not setting U.S. policy here."
Ha!
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
"Do I think this admin is stretching the truth - you bet they are. Should they do it? No. Is that pretty much the only way to get things done in DC? Unfortunately yes. ... In my opinion all Presidents since have realized this approach, unfortunately, won't work."
Jeez, what an elaborate rationalization. Don't you have any core values? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 657
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Southerner,
While we agree on many things, I refuse to believe that the only way to get things done is to mislead the public. If the truth is to hard to tell, maybe there's a reason.
And yes, Jimmy Carter was a terrible President. A great guy, from what I've heard, but a very poor leader. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
A bus full of politicians was driving down the highway when suddenly it swerved and crashed into a tree on a farm. A few days later a police officer came to the farmers door and asked if there had been a bus crash here, and of course, the answer was yes. Then the officer asked the farmer what had happen to all the politicians that were on the bus. The farmer said that he had buried them all. The police thought this was strange and asked him if all of them were dead before he had buried them. To this the farmer replied, "Well, not all of them, but you know how politicians lie!"
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I wish I were as idealistic as some. I hope that the next time when a politician stretches the boundaries of truthfulness on a subject you agree with them on, that you jump all over them as well. I won't. I understand it's politics and that is what these people do.
Themp,
Sorry if I'm a realist and don't paint a pretty picture. If you don't know by now that politics is the dirtiest of all games then I have some beachfront property in the Okefenokee to sell you. I do indeed have core values but I'm not a politician. What do you want me to do, drive to DC and tell these guys they are lame. DC would be empty if all the truth stretchers departed (both sides of the aisle I might add). Let's face it Bush versus Kerry wasn't a race of the top two capable people in the U.S. It was a race by the top two guys who were cut throat enough to win their parties nomination. I don't agree on Bush on every issue and I doubt that the other side loved Kerry on every issue. Unfortunately, we had to choose one of them.
Ffof,
I stated this wasn't a debate competition because I don't look at that way. I simply like to here other's opinions especially those I don't necessarily agree with. Rastro and Tom are two good guys and I like reading what they say even if we don't particulary agree. I don't log off thinking I lost or he won. That's a little childish and I'm to busy trying to keep the bill collector at bay that I don't really care either. But if someone (Tom, Rastro, and others) make good points then I think about them throughout the day and then re-think my position. That's why I don't look at this board as a debate. Who's the judge anyway? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Dammit, southerner! We are too setting U.S. policy here!!! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 659
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
quote:I hope that the next time when a politician stretches the boundaries of truthfulness on a subject you agree with them on, that you jump all over them as well. I won't. I understand it's politics and that is what these people do.
Actually, I do jump on them. Consider the ammunition that Bush gives his opponents when he lies. He's been a relatively teflon President, but each time they stretch the truth (or outright lie), they give credence to their opponents. For example, it might be a very good idea to privatize Social Security, but each time Bush or his administration gets caught in a lie about it (or stretching the truth, if you prefer), it makes some people think "I wonder what else they're not telling us" or "What is it they're trying to hide?"
If I believe in something, I specifically don't want the politicians who support it to lie about it. I want other people to think it's a good idea on its own merits, not be tricked into supporting it. What kind of real support can something have if the people have to be fooled into supporting it?
A politician being caught in a lie can kill a program very quickly, no matter how well intentioned or positive they may have been. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5283
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
If you're still game to read my links, read Little Black Lies, also by Paul Krugman.
I appreciate your aim to be civil and cordial. I have the same aim.
However, I've been hoping to get into deeper stuff than, "I'm for this" or "I'm against that."
Why do you think privatization is a good idea? Why do you think the social contract is now irrelevant (if you think that)?
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
From www.Washingtonmonthly.com
FIVE EASY PIECES....For the past few days I've been wondering what's going to happen next in the Social Security battle. What I mean is this: it now looks pretty certain that George Bush's private account plan isn't going to fly. Democratic opposition is pretty firm and it increasingly looks like too many Republicans are backing away from private accounts for Bush to pull out a victory. So what's the backup plan?
I haven't blogged about this for two reasons. First, it seems a little like looking past this week's game to the big game coming up next. That's a big no-no in sports and, I imagine, a big no-no in politics too. Still, if you can't noodle aimlessly about stuff like this on a blog, where can you noodle aimlessly about it?
The second reason I haven't blogged about it is a little more serious: I don't really have any ideas. Working on the assumption that Bush and his advisors understand the political reality as well as anyone, I figure they know they probably can't win and have something else up their sleeves. But I don't know what.
But today I want to take a guess. A couple of weeks ago Jon Chait wrote a long and informative article in the New Republic about tax reform. Here's how he describes a Republican strategy called "Five Easy Pieces":
The Five Easy Pieces strategy postulates that the long-time conservative goal of a sweepingly radical tax overhaul, such as replacing the income tax with a flat tax or a national sales tax, runs too much political risk. Instead, [longtime tax lobbyist Ernest] Christian has argued, conservatives can achieve the same goal by doing five things: cutting marginal tax rates, eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, allowing more generous treatment of business investment, doing away with the estate tax, and establishing tax-free personal savings accounts. The three major Bush tax cuts to date have achieved the first four pieces, partially or completely.
I wonder if the final phase of this strategy is behind Bush's Social Security posturing? Maybe the plan looks something like this:
Bush proposes private accounts for Social Security.
As expected, Democrats go to the mattresses in opposition. However, in an effort to demonstrate reasonableness they all agree — almost in passing — that of course they have nothing against encouraging savings, but that it should be done in addition to Social Security, not in place of it.
After pretending to give it a good try, Bush counts noses, realizes he can't win, and reluctantly agrees to settle for tax-free private accounts on top of Social Security, just like the ones Dems say they have nothing against. Of course, this will be the Republican version of tax-free private accounts — big, unrestricted ones that mostly help the well off — but by now the Dems can hardly oppose a compromise like this, can they?
Part 5 of Five Easy Pieces is now enshrined in law.
Is this right? I don't know. But there has to be something going on that's not obvious on the surface. Bush has smart people advising him, and they must realize that the odds of getting Social Security privatization passed is virtually nil. My guess is that it can't even pass the House, and there's zero chance of it getting enough votes to cut off a filibuster in the Senate. So why expend so much political capital on such a quixotic venture? There's got to be something else going on.
|
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 376
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
bush often cites Chile's privitization as a model system to be replicated.
there has just been a flurry of stories out of chile how the first generation to recieve money under the system have just reached the threshhold and their payments are alot lower than expected and lower than they would have been if the sytem had not been privatized. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 12:55 am: |
|
Tom,
I guess this is where we are different on our approach and use of this board. I jump on for a few minutes read the threads and make some small comments from time to time. I don't feel the need to go through a point by point of why I came to my conclusions as I don't really have the time to do an in-depth analysis. Sorry. I wish I had the free time to get into a deep discussion but I don't. Also, I never claim to be correct. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not always right and may be often wrong. I know that you may regard me as a lame poster for this shallowness but I am entitled to my opinion even if I don't back it up with nice articles from the same 4 or 5 guys you often link to. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3287
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
but you had time for this puff piece |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3048
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
I don't think the phrase "crisis" is a lie when applied to the Social Security system when you view the denial, fear (of losing political power) and ignorance of this country. If I knew that something would be done to fix a program that can't possibly sustain it's promises in the relatively near future, then "crisis" would be a lie. But that's not the case, and the term is accurate.
Chile's system didn't pay as much as the 'old system'? Well, could that system really pay for itself too, and if it couldn't, then that argument is shot. (Unless the thinking is "Hey. I got mine. Best of luck to you kids, and keep the taxes rolling in for me as I've got some years left here.") I read one article on Chile where the people in the most difficulty are the ones that got paid under the table and didn't enter the system in the first place. Boy -- give them a ton of benefits if that's the case. "The system didn't work for me!" Were you in it? "No."
Please. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5336
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Please read http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/31/dont _use_fdr_to_undermine_social_security/ |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3065
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
I read it. Fine then. Leave the system as it is, and get a 22-25% cut in 2052, and another 10% cut in 2075, and another, and another, and another. Or you could raise taxes every 10-15 years or more and the public, like a frog being brought to a boil on top of a stove -- won't know how dire his surroundings are becoming. Either way, you could keep raising taxes to offset the demographic certainty of ultimate failure and keep delaying it until you're saddled with entitlement spending ala Europe and the inherent enemic economic growth and constant, constant bellyaching making any adjustments (which Schroeder tried to make) unworkable due to the cycle of dependence created.
People wonder about deficits and worry about the debt placed on their children, but they're perfectly willing to sell their children's future for their retirement. Social Security they say was never meant to be a retirement program, but that's what it has turned into for far too many and Democrats were perfectly willing to sell them that shallow, pitiful dream so long as it keeps them in power.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page