| Author |
Message |
    
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 510
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 10:32 pm: | 
|
Since November’s election Democratic Leaders have seized every effort to criticize anything Bush. They disappoint by not bringing anything new to the table and never offer alternative solutions to any of the situations that they condemn. They only project failure at every turn.
As a result Democratic Leaders have shown themselves not to be leaders, but rather followers. They follow whatever it is that Bush suggests with contempt and disapproval. Yet, they offer no alternative solutions. They’d rather be seen as Anti-Bush. Democrats have no issues that serve to unite their party, other than hatred of all things Bush. (And we are only beginning to now see how well that strategy is working.)
The Democratic Party is in ruins and Democrats, on a national scale are swiftly being rendered irrelevant.
Where is the true leadership among Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Reid (Harry, I think) from Nevada, Hillary, Bill, the Rev. Al, George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer… all fall back upon exaggerated rhetoric. They are out of touch and have no fresh ideas.
A great example is Social Security. On January 19th, our president delivered his State of the Union address. From it are taken these few comments.
“With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a "senior boom." So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.”
“Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised. “
“The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; and not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.”
“Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years. “
“But we must aim higher. We should put Social Security on a sound footing for the next 75 years. We should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as our other seniors -- and we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn.”
“Now, these changes will require difficult but fully achievable choices over and above the dedication of the surplus. They must be made on a bipartisan basis. They should be made this year. So let me say to you tonight, I reach out my hand to all of you in both houses and both parties and ask that we join together in saying to the American people: We will save Social Security now.”
The key of course is that in this speech was given by Bill Clinton and in 1999. In it he proposed that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security. Well, we all know now that the surplus was never real. It was a paper surplus. You know the story, and I’m sad to say I definitely expect prominent Democratic MOL posters to nay say this connection by blaming Bush for the lack of surplus. To bad, but that’s not the point.
What is the point is that back then this was a defining issue for the Democrats. “Save Social Security first,” went the cry. So now, we have a president willing to actually address this critical issue, a problem recognized by their leader "the solvency of Social Security," and what do Democratic Leaders do? They can’t say anything positive even though this was once their own issue. They come out against it, seeking only to obstruct Bush’s plan.
The best part is this. Bush has already stated in his speech that all methods at solution to this problem are going to be put on the table. He has thrown a gauntlet directed at the Leaders of both parties …and all the Democrats can do is criticize. They offer nothing...
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13139
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Since November all right. November of 2000.
Bush is not perfect by any means. But he's not nearly as bad as the Democrats make him out to be.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
Face,
It's gonna be alright so relax a little. Don't misinterpret the threads and posts on this board for anything more than they are. A venting session for both sides in a bastion of liberalism. The social security issue will be addressed. Whether it's now or later (I think it's coming soon) the Republicans have a firm hold on Congress and will continue to have this hold for years to come which means they are setting the agenda. The country is getting redder so you can relax even though your in a haven of blue (although NJ is a much lighter shade of blue than a few years ago). Even if the Dems get the White House in 08 their guy or Hil will be made impotent by a Republican congress (besides, Hillary is turning conservative right in front of our eyes). I don't blame the Dems for doing what they're doing, however. They have no power thus they really have no forum to offer solutions that anyone will care about. The pendulum has swing. Remember, it wasn't until Newt in 1994, that the Dems held Congressional power for many decades. I look for the Repubs to have Congress for the forseeable future. So cheer up a little don't let the noise get you down. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5204
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Yes, let's question Dem leadership. After all, they brought us to invade a nation under false pretense and change its form of government to one based on Koranic law, lobby for destructive environmental policies, while their friends at Enron ... wait a sec. Never mind.
Instead, I would question the Dems' ability to put forward a solid candidate. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 840
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
My guess is that Bush has until 2007 to produce the rapture his presidency promised to the one-third of the electorate who believe the bible is literally true and voted republican under the belief, propagated without hesitation by Karl Rove, that Bush would hasten their arrival in heaven as they get to watch, no doubt with popcorn on their lap, the rest of us heathens burn in the fire and brimstone landscape that was once called "Blue America."
When the rapture fails to come, and these Red Americans realize they are working three jobs and their president is laughing at them for this, the electorate might finally wake up from their religion-as-drug induced stuper and vote democratic.
Unfortunately, the growing redness of this country also indicates a growing movement away from rational thought. Is it so bad out there in Jesusland that their only hope is the apocalypse? Is so, keep voting republican, because if the world doesn't end by some supernatural deity as predicted 2,000 years ago, Bush will see to it personally...
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 486
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
quote:Well, we all know now that the surplus was never real. It was a paper surplus.
I must have missed that item. Can you elaborate? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5417
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Robert, you are unrealistically optimistic. Remember that faith doesn't have to be based on rational thought. People can ignore cause and effect, and therefore, they can believe that they are working three jobs despite Bush's policies, not because of them. "Bush is good" is even easier to believe than the imminence of the rapture. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
"[Democrats] never offer alternative solutions to any of the situations that they condemn."
This particular load of BS is nearly replacing the old chestnut "Liberals hate America" as the most popular among drones, lately.
Face, either mention a problem for which there has been no solution proposed by a Democrat, or SHUT UP already. Not every suggestion by a Democrat gets a lot of exposure on Faux News. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Notehead is right!
The Dems have proposed several solutions to the SS problem:
1) Raise payroll taxes.
2) Raise income taxes.
3) Ignore it.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
"The key of course is that in this speech was given by Bill Clinton and in 1999. In it he proposed that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security."
Ah, the surplus. You're making me nostalgic. Let me suggest something - it was the existence of the surplus that made social security the next big problem on the horizon. But now that we have huge deficits as far as the eye can see, the social security problem is secondary in importance. You seriously want to borrow trillions right now? The short term fiscal situation is really on the front burner now, and speaking of leadership, do you think the republican party can solve it? Not with this budget proposal I'd answer! |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
"I don't blame the Dems for doing what they're doing, however. They have no power thus they really have no forum to offer solutions that anyone will care about. The pendulum has swing. "
Don't look now, Johnny Reb, but they have enough power to block the partial soc security phase out Bush favors. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
what I've read is that an increase in the payroll tax of about 2% would solve the potential SS shortfall. If that's correct, it would be about $800 a year for the average person, and would max out at about $1,800 for top earners. Does this constitute a "crisis?"
Some people spend more than that in a year on cigarettes or beer. What's the big deal about spending that much to ensure you'll get a SS check when you retire? |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7535
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Michaei, for the record the Bush "plan" doesn't address funding or benefit cuts at all. All his plan does is propose private accounts (which are popular, especially with younger workers, with funding and the Social Security "crisis" to be solved by Congress. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
The private account -- the private retirement accounts alone don't fix Social Security. They are part of a larger solution.
GWB 2/5/05
Bush has said over and over that nothing is off the table except tax hikes, and that he wants to structurally reform the system INCLUDING private accounts. He has said over and over that he wants to work with congress to come up with a solution.
|
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7537
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Given his mandate he should propose a solution. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
So you're saying he's being too multilateral? |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
From the State of the Union:
Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.
All these ideas are on the table. I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
"the private retirement accounts alone don't fix Social Security. They are part of a larger solution. "
They are a solution looking for a problem to latch onto. They don't do anything about the shortfall. Is it a surprised that people are suspicious?
"In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems."
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
if you take tax increases off the table, you're left with only benefit cuts in some form, or massive borrowing.
But the idea that no one on the left has any ideas for SS is just more wing nut rhetoric. Plenty of people have proposed raising the retirement age. Most reasonable people would accept this, especially if it phases in. The "contract" FDR forged with citizens assumed most of us wouldn't be retired as long as we will be in the 21st century. It's perfectly reasonable to raise the age at which we start to collect SS in order to bring the length of time we collect more in line with original actuarial projections.
Also, Bill Clinton and others have supported the idea of retirement savings accounts, but as an add-on - a hedge against the SS trust running out, but not in place of the defined benefit. An opportunity to save another 4-5%, tax deferred, in a personal investment account is an idea that would appeal to most people. It would be portable, and would become part of your estate if you died before spending it. What's not to like, as long as it's not introduced as a means of ending the current defined SS benefit. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Doc,
Thats called a 401k. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
and not every worker has one |
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 511
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Albatross, The budget surplus I mentioned was used to reduce the national debt. In other words the surplus was not actual money spent on anything, instead it was used as an accounting measure solely to offset, or reduce the national debt. Picture a balance sheet with debits and credits. In other words they are line items on a ledger rather than actual dollars. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5218
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
With that argument, your net value is the sum of what is in your wallet. |
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Dave, there was a time in my life when I may have thought you possessed wit. That phase has past and grown dim.
Notehead, Is it truly a wonder that you are a member of a political party that is facing a serious dilemma? You self-rightous Democrats deserve it. Nationally your party is severely out of touch with registered voters. (And I cannot wait to see what direction gets taken in several states, NJ included.) This is due mainly because the Democratic Party lacks the necessary leadership that is in tune with attracting a sufficient constituency to halt the decline in it power structure, rendering Democrats moot. My post serves to point out that fact.
Since you have provided nothing solid to rebut my theory, choosing instead to declare that I should “SHUT UP,” warrants serious attention from the moderators as well as readers who potentially side with your point of view.
Wake up! Face the facts! Your party is being led by Harry Reid in the Senate. Harry Who? Your previous leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle went from Majority Leader to Minority leader, to losing his seat. Why? Lack of leadership ability, that’s why.
I question the leadership of a Nancy Pelosi. Has she brought forth legislation that focuses upon party issues? What are the party’s major issues? Same-ol, same-ol? Can she lead your party appropriately? Will Howard Dean?
Why do you need Senator Ted Kennedy and Former KKK Robert Byrd to rally the troops? Because they remind folks of the past, when your party was strong and made the effort to lead. That leading isn’t happening. They have no fresh ideas. Will Obama what's his name?
Your Democratic Presidential Platform included such prudent leaders as Denis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton. Neither man was taken seriously by more than 2% of even Democrats. I don’t think that I’d want any of these folks out in front leading my parade. And your boy John Kerry did a heck of a job running, but not as a leader. Instead he gained ground only when condemning Bush at every opportunity and with your money and look at the result.
No Notehead, I will not SHUT UP. Instead I will put your face in it at every opportunity. Condemn me all you wish, but you might also learn something about your own party from letting the truth sink in. Question your party leaders, they are making mistakes that are seriously undermining the effectivenes of the Democratic National Party.
|
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5221
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Now who can be witty compared to you? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 697
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Face,
To say that a surplus that is spent to reduce the debt is just paper money shows a complete lack of understanding of finances. For every billion dollars our debt is paid down, that's tens of millions of dollars that are no longer needed to service that debt ANNUALLY. So while those specific dollars might not have been spent directly on a government program, you could say they paid for several by reducing the amount of money that would otherwise have been spent on debt service.
To put it in simpler terms, what you're saying is tantamont to saying there is no value in paying down your mortgage with a year end bonus. In reality, paying down your mortgage puts more money in your pocket every month. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:18 pm: |
|
face,
chill for a minute.
The Democratic party is being remade. The center is shifting away from Washington, toward its grassroots around the country. That's what Howard Dean's imminent selection of head of the DNC is about. None of the current Democratic power brokers wanted Dean as chairman. But he's the only one who connects with the next generation of Democratic voters, who are fed up with the likes of Reid, and Lieberman, and even Kerry, who'd rather appease the Republicans than stand up for a principle.
It may not pay off in '06 or even '08, but the face of the Democratic Party is going to change, and it will ultimately stand for something other than "not Bush." |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4319
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
"The budget surplus I mentioned was used to reduce the national debt. In other words the surplus was not actual money spent on anything, instead it was used as an accounting measure solely to offset, or reduce the national debt."
So, we spent less than we took in, and reduced our debt.
You may not think of that as a "surplus", but if that happened often enough, wouldn't the debt go away? |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5228
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Damn this fuzzy math! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3103
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Private accounts do address the Social Security shortfall in that they'll provide a larger return on investment and pay benefits to the holder that Social Security cannot. Exposing more income to the FICA tax turns this into more of a welfare program where you're transfering wealth from one group to another. Same with using general tax revenues. Across-the-board tax increases to fund a measly benefit isn't a real winner either.
By the way, Clinton didn't advocate add-on accounts to fix Social Security as I recall. He advocated the government buying stocks and bonds to increase the return on any Social Security surpluses, to which Greenspan strenuously objected on the basis of government manipulation of the markets.
Clinton was right in harnessing the market to make Social Security work. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Face,
Its worse than you say.
The surplus was mostly the result of the government internally taking loans from the SS revenues that at the time exceeded payouts.
So the surplus was really nothing more than the result of taking a loan.
Its like this...
The government took in X in general revenues and spent Y (which is greater than X), but it had taken loans from SS in the amount of Z.
The total amount of X+Z exceeded Y by the supposed surplus.
We still borrow from the SS revenues, but General revenues are lower, creating a deficit that we borrow from other creditors from.
Its an elaborate version of check kiting. So no, Nohero, it wouldn't eventually eliminate the debt, it would just move the debt from National Debt (the money borrowed to run the government) to Internal Debt (the money borrowed from one government agency by another). Unfortunately, its a zero sum game. And Debt actually increased during the surplus years.
It's all going to really expolde when SS revenues fall below outlays. The government won't have that money to borrow AND it'll need to start paying back the money its taken. It'll be double negatives. Its going to be ugly regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
It'll be even uglier if SS isn't reformed now.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Face, if you want to keep slinging the same turds, it is YOU are behooved to provide some evidence to support your claims, as I asked. You've adopted the Republican tactic of bleating the same nonsense over and over in the hope of convincing somebody that it's true. On another of your many trolling threads I illustrated how Democrats offered suggestions and alternatives to some of the major decisions made in the Iraq issue. I also mentioned that Kerry offered more specific plans during his candidacy than Bush did. Democrats do not reflexively put down every move Bush makes, and they offer alternatives to problems across the entire spectrum of issues. Opposition by Dems to such a large amount of Bush's proposals is not a product of arbitrariness, it exists because Bush is a crappy President with a lot of bad ideas.
I ask you, and the entire board: is it unreasonable to ask you to shut up if all you offer is repetitions of simplistic and baseless guff?
Democrats have supported Bush's allowing the EPA to crack down on certain types of polluting energy production facilities. Dems supported the attack against the Taliban & Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan. Many Dems support Bush's intention to reduce farm subsidizations. Bush's desires to quell terrorism and allow more people in the world to govern themselves is seen as laudable by virtually all Dems, although they may have major issues with his methods or priorities. Also, it should be remembered that many of Bush's proposals -- economic, military, educational, environmental, etc. -- are opposed by various Republicans.
Sometimes, the best alternative plan is to stay the course. Should we gut the Clean Water Act? No, many Dems say, we shouldn't; let's keep it as it is. Other times, a situation calls for action... we've toppled Saddam, now it's time to get control of the country. Do we have enough troops and should we should go it alone? No, Dems say, let's let other countries help us and let's make sure we have enough soldiers on hand.
I reiterate my challenge: find me a serious problem where Dems both objected to Bush's solution and did NOT offer an alternative.
And if you can't do that -- and you can't -- then quit the petulant whining about Democrats never having any suggestions. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page