home

Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security

Did you watch? What did you think?

Update: Shorter version:

Listen Up, said the President
We are programmed to deceive.
We will spin out any lie we like,
'cause money you won't receive"

[hat tip to the Eagles and Hotel California]

Update: The Washington Post article on the speech (not an oped, but a news article) bears the headline, "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits"

And another illiterate Bush line that makes no sense: "Bush said. "I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith."

< Pentagon Says No to CIA's Ghost Detainee Policy | Military Jury Returns Death Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    Unbelievable. Glazed eyes, jerky movements, the stills folks will have a field day with his expressions. Slurred speech. Some pearls: "It wuddun workin". "We still at war". And the millions of us mature individuals listening to this so called professional would probably respond better to Dr. Rice, not Condi, and President Putin, not Vladimur. JMHO. Nearly hysterical at times and iterrupting the questioners. This is the most important person on the planet? We are so screwed.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    This sums it up for me: Worst. President. Ever.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    Can't bring together a vital argument? Make fun of a man's accent.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    A relative said, after hearing the President's "news conference": "Bush sounds like Alfred E. Neuman on steroids." Works for me...Nothing new on social security, just the same lame speile on "personal accounts". I wouldn't trust the stock market to handle the money. Yes, I think the President should advocate us raising the payroll taxes to pay for it. The President quoted a figure of 18%. My answer to that is: Mr. President, raise our payroll taxes. We are in debt because of your tax policies and now we have to pay the piper.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Heretik on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    Bush wants the up and down vote. Blah. Bush wants to stop terror. Blah, Blah. We are working really, really hard. on social security. Blah, blah, blah. Now I'm hearing Lindsey Graham of South Carolina say we probably don't want to borrow a trillion dollars. Progress there. Oy. Graham is standing next to Bad Combover Biden. Oy. Bush is going to get hammered on T Bills.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:22:49 PM EST
    He actually said the reason for all the increased teror attacks is because of our effective offense. Can someone explain this to me?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    Steve Plonk writes - "I wouldn't trust the stock market to handle the money" Steve, the stock market, through various imvestment tools - IRA's, 401k's, is handling the retirement funds of millions. Some of these groups is the Congressional Retirement Fund, the California Teacher's Retirement Fund, the Colorado Teacher's Retirement Fund and many, many others. Do you really think these people would have their money invested into a plan that doesn't work? BTW - 18% from the employee also says 18% from the employer. That is right at a 24% increase from the current 12%, plus the FIT. Do you really think the economy could stand that? On a personal note, could you stand a 12% pay cut? Could your employer stand an 12% pay increase for you? Might that cause you to become unemployed?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    Hey guys, Blaghdaddy's feelin' mighty sick. He doesn't know if it's the Bush performance or the shrimp he just refunded while writing his blog...Blaghdaddy's down for the count, but he mangaged to finish. Not to take up TL's valid space, here's the link if anyone's interested. God bless all and talk to y'all tomorrer

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:00:00 PM EST
    It amazes me to listen to all of the liberal "know it alls". Bush was great and you democrats are a bunch of crap! He has all of you hood winked. And.....he is one of the best President's we have ever had. You don't like him because he isn't giving you anything free....he's making you earn it (if that's possible).

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:02:47 PM EST
    Thank you for that explanation. Wha?

    Posted by Wahoowah at April 28, 2005 07:11 PM Can't bring together a vital argument? Make fun of a man's accent.
    This "someone" is the most powerful man on earth, and accents are more than just different ways of pronouncing something. They are also identity markers, designed to demonstrate inclusion in a certain social group, and come with both positive and negative connotations both within said group and without. People in the entertainment industry know that, to be taken seriously, they need to lose whatever accent they have (even if it means having to take speech classes to do so). Radio announcers and DJs, news anchors, and even actors know this. Ever notice how those Australian actors, like Mel Gibson or Nicole Kidman, no longer have their original accents? So they can lose their identification as "outsiders," or foreigners, and be accepted as legit by including themselves in the standard American English pronunciation form. Much like a certain type of British accent, this marks one as being part of all social circles and none. More importantly, you'll notice that almost all highly-educated people speak with that same set of standard inflection -- because they need to in order to be taken seriously as academics. This may sound ridiculous and problematic, but it's a natural dynamic of human communication. Language, from accents and slang to the actual language itself, is tied inescapably to that culture (or subculture's) worldview and perception of reality, and is a powerful tool for identity and class inclusion. What Bush is doing by speaking in that accent is subconsciously trying to demonstrate he is a member of a certain type of American social caste or class, to indicate he is a certain "type" of person: an "average Joe." By doing this, his ideas earn more merit from a large section of the American populace who might tend to reject them from an "intellectual" as more political rhetoric. Another guy in a suit to be ignored. He is also effectively giving a big middle finger to the educated (listen to the accents of the other people around him, by the way). So, you see -- his accent is PART of his argument and identity. It's a "package." And that's what we're ridiculing. The President of the U.S. should strive to be more class-neutral and to demonstrate his education. But -- that's right -- Bush is a C student. Mediocrity and anti-intellectualism rules the day it seems.

    chris matthews is an idiot. Tim Russert is an idiot. Frum has a really bad hairpiece or hairweave (hard to tell what that muskrat on his head was). There is a huge war in Iraq. There is the filibuster issue and the soon to be Supreme Court picks. There is so much more that W could have been asked but all we got was social security nonsense questions. I am ashamed of our press.

    Texas star: Hoodwink is a verb and is one word.

    HawaiianBrian - Not bad, but you miss the real point. People like him with his accent. Only those who do not like him dislike his accent. If he lost the accent: The people who dislike him would not like him any better. The people who like him would think he had turned into a phony. That's lose-lose in any accent, or language.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:31:36 PM EST
    Who said anything about his accent? I'm talking about diction and speech. And medication.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:40:41 PM EST
    When you've arbitrarily killed that many people openly, and gotten away with it in a big way, and actually turned it to political advantage, you can talk in any damned accent, with any imprecision of diction, that you like.

    I really think there is some sort of medical problem. Slurred speach. Glazed eyes. Rocking back and forth. Not making sense. He said to look at states that already have "private" accounts...well...barbara boxer did....and "surprise" people aren't fairing well. (peruse the report) Think Progress has a good rundown

    People actually like mumbling, glassy-eyed inbred retards? Must be a southern thang... Shorter Bush: Social Security is going broke! Now please gimme another 100 billion of your tax bucks to piss away in Iraq.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    Jim is evidently not bothered by the fact that the accent is fake. If I suddenly started speaking with an Irish brogue, citing my heritage, people might think I was losingit.

    Randy Paul, You prove my point....think you are smarter than others. Guess what...you are not. You and your "people" love to criticize but show us nothing!

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kitt on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    "Bush was great and you democrats are a bunch of crap! He has all of you hood winked."
    Thanks for bringing hood winked (sic) to the writer's attention. The definition of such might just prove handy as well: 'To take in by deceptive means; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive. {Archaic. To blindfold; Obsolete. To conceal}' Perhaps the texas star was speaking tongue-in-cheek. Then again - perhaps not.

    Posted by texas star at April 28, 2005 08:00 PM And.....he is one of the best President's we have ever had. You don't like him because he isn't giving you anything free....he's making you earn it (if that's possible).
    Actually, Bush gives me all sorts of free stuff because my salary places me among the wealthy. I get all sorts of tax breaks because people like you voted for him. I haven't had to work for it at all.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimcee on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    As much as GWB gives me this the chills when he speaks I love the fact that it sends the colegiate crowd into conniptions. After all the people that complain about language really don't contribute much to the economic well being of the proletariate except maybe hiring that mexican maid under the table. I enjoy the Bushisms as that they send some folks into a self-agrandizing sense of psuedo-inteletualizing which proves what a bunch of self involved twits that they are. Kind of like a verbal Rorcharch test. Funny thing..if you ask me..but then again who asked me?

    To PJJ: Could your employer stand an 12% pay increase for you? Might that cause you to become unemployed? From the President's Social Security Plan dated February 2005: Social Security will not be changed for those 55 or older (born before 1950). Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits and millions more are nearing retirement. For these Americans, Social Security benefits are secure and will not change in any way. and... We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. For those Americans 55 and older (born before 1950), nothing will change, and nobody is going to take away or change their check. and... Personal retirement accounts would be voluntary. At any time, a worker could “opt in” by making a one-time election to put a portion of his or her payroll taxes into a personal retirement account. and... Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable. I could go on, but I think you get the point. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT GOING AWAY! You will still have Social Security taxes taken out of your paycheck each and every month. The only thing that the President's Social Security Plan is going to do is cost the American taxpayers $664 billion over the next 10 years to implement. How about instead of spending $664 billion creating a system I can already invest in on my own, we use that money to pay back the billions of dollars the federal government has "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund"?

    About 90 seconds into the speech, on the day when Exxon reported a 44% increase in profits, Bush said he wouldn't allow price gouging at the pumps. Yeh, right. Then he said SS would go bankrupt in 2041: at worst, it will pay 70% of promises, not be bankrupt -- and that's only if the economy produces at 1.9% increased rate. Also today, everyone is boo-hooing that the GDP went from 3/4% to 3.1%: if it stays there for the next 75 years THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS!

    I paid $42.00 to fill up my car today. Talk about sticker shock.

    Bush is doing by speaking in that accent is subconsciously trying to demonstrate...
    when you demonstrate something, isn't it usually a conscious decision? Typical elitist liberal - the man has an accent because he's from Texas. Just because he doesn't talk as crisply as you would like doesn't make him unintelligent. Academics lose their accents so that they can sound uppety and professional - the majority of America doesn't want to sound that snide.

    Intentionally, I skipped it. When I got to my friend's house for dinner, he was on--I heard one line, something about when children can read and add, it doesn't matter that they can't measure --we laughed and wondered what on earth that means, then we thought maybe we misheard him, then we figured out we probably didn't, so we laughed again and turned off the tv for good. Thanks to all for the comments, I can see I didn't miss much. Update: according to the transcript, the line was " If you teach a child to read and write, it shouldn't bother you whether you measure."

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:35:48 PM EST
    the man has an accent because he's from Texas. Actually, he's from Connecticut and he bought a "ranch" in Texas that doesn't have any livestock. But don't let actual facts get in the way of anything. Bush is afraid of horses. Some Texan.

    when you demonstrate something, isn't it usually a conscious decision?
    Not always. We make thousands of decisions every day without consciously considering them. When you talk to your mother, do you prearrange your words? Or your boss, or even your closest friends? No, but your language choices (and thus how you represent yourself) are different for each of these people.
    Typical elitist liberal - the man has an accent because he's from Texas.
    Nothing elitist about learning to understand language and social discourse. Elitism would be if I said "all those people who don't understand the theory of linguistics are socially inferior," or "all those who speak with a southern/Texas accent are socially inferior." I never made a personal value judgment about his accent, but merely explained why he might choose to affect one or not. There's nothing elitist or liberal about that. I don't believe, based of course solely on observation through the media (just like you, or any of us) that Bush is intelligent, if you accept the definition of intelligent as "educated," "knowledgable" or "quick witted." I do think he is savvy: he knows his audience, he knows how to spin things, and he certainly knows how to emotionally manipulate his audience in a debate (as opposed to setting up rationally indisputable arguments). Interesting that, to you, possessing education marks one as inferior ("elitist," "uppity," "snide"). Don't celebrate ignorance!

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#31)
    by Johnny on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:46:16 AM EST
    So what we have is a man who is barely literate, spewing the same old crap about SS, and to top it off, he says something about not allowing his daddy, oops... somethng about not gouging customers at the gas pump Put your money where your mouth is chimp boy. And that includes your retirement. wait, as a prez, his retirement is guaranteed. Unlike all the people with jobs that the gov't is not going to... what the he!! am i wasting my breath for? Every worker in this country deserves the exact same retirement, health, and perk benefits as Mr Chimp-in-chief... Thats all i am gonna say about that...

    Worst. Used Car Salesman. Ever.

    I watched most of his speech as was still as dumbfounded as ever. How can someone like him make it into office.. twice?! He randomly through words and phrases into his sentences that just made no sense. Ignorance at its best.

    After all the people that complain about language really don't contribute much to the economic well being Jimcee dont let me hear any complaints when LA schools begin using ebonics.

    Johnny writes - "Every worker in this country deserves the exact same retirement, health, and perk benefits as Mr Chimp-in-chief..." Works for me, Johnny. Now, tell us how we can do this. And hurry up. I'm already retired, and the wonderful SC benefits the Dems are talking about just aren't what they were cracked up to be. Lisa writes, "How about instead of spending $664 billion creating a system I can already invest in on my own, we use that money to pay back the billions of dollars the federal government has "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund"? Sounds good, but.... They have spent the money borrowed, and they have no way of paying it back without more taxes. That is why it is called a Ponzi Scheme. (Remember. The only money the government has is money it takes from you.) HawaiianBrian - I agree with your theory about language and "package," that's just "Dress For Success." But you run into trouble when you say he isn't intelligent, and then bring in "savvy." Savvy, acording to my dictionary means to undersatnd and to be wise. You can't understand and be wise without being intelligent. I have known many people who were not well educated, yet were very intelligent and knowledgable about their world. This, of course, is not saying that an education wouldn't improve them in a variety of ways. You may not be guilty of dismissing Bush because of his accent, but I think many have. In the meantime, as he demonstrates his poor speaking ability, and as he struggles for the right word, a large percentage of his audience has great empathy, and understand what he means. That is communication. And that is what a leader needs to be able to do.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 05:56:56 AM EST
    The "aw-shucks" speech and phony Texas accent wouldn't bother me if what he said actually made sense. The man has no credibility left with me. He speaks, I hear "lie, lie, big lie, lie". Only 3 more years, hope we make it.

    God, please help this country awake and turn significantly in the 2006 elections. That's my prayer. Dubya becomes less relevant if the 2006 election goes against his agenda. Then he becomes the lamest of lame ducks.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:11:06 AM EST
    CA I share the same prayer But how are they going to wake up. Who's going to wake them up? Certainly not the media. The only thing that might wake people up would be a continued deterioration of the economy or the institution of the draft.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#39)
    by marty on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:13:09 AM EST
    "Typical elitist liberal - the man has an accent because he's from Texas." Funny how the accent varies.....sometmes it's thick and noticeable, when he's in his "regular guy" pose. Other times, when he does the "serious world leader schtick", it's gone. He's just a phony....a phony Texan, a phony leader.

    And another illiterate Bush line that makes no sense: "Bush said. "I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith." What exactly is illiterate or doesn't make sense about this line? I find it hard to believe that you don't know the meaning of the word "ascribe" or the particular issue regard previous claims about attacks on his nominees being an issue of faith (given that you've covered them yourself). So what is it in this line that you can't figure out?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#41)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:50:12 AM EST
    I was having lunch with the feller, and he said, Go lower the price of gasoline, President.
    Who the hell is this guy, Sheriff Andy?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    Sounds good, but.... They have spent the money borrowed, and they have no way of paying it back without more taxes. They have spent ALL the money they've borrowed. Are you suggesting none of it will be paid back? Not to the Asians? Not to W himself (whose own money is in govt securities)? Is this a new standard? Borrow money and don't pay it back because you've spent it? Would any of us get away with that?

    aw, I agree, but it might help to remember that "they" didn't borrow the money. "We" did. When the government borrows and spends money, the president's name is not on the loan, nor are the names of any members of congress. The name on the dotted line is "The United States of America" and that means you and me and everyone else in this country. And the same hold true even when we borrow from ourselves. The money to pay this back has to come from somewhere, and unless you are willing to accept major cuts to other programs, it has to come through higher taxes.

    "The money to pay this back has to come from somewhere, and unless you are willing to accept major cuts to other programs, it has to come through higher taxes." In other words, Bush screwed us and we have to continue to pay for it. Impeach him now, roll back the future tax cuts for the wealthy and corps, fix the defense budget, reinstate the Estate tax at a higher limit than last (maybe around 3.5 ro 4 mil)...there are answers.

    Losing Faith, No, Bush didn't "screw us", or at least not in this regard, although I will grant you he isn't helping to stem the flow of money right now. Congress has been spending the money for years; years which, for the most part, the Democrats controlled the House, in which all spending bills originate. If you want to impeach someone, start with your local representative and your senator.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:05:02 AM EST
    “In other words, Bush screwed us and we have to continue to pay for it.” They SS trust was being used long before Bush was in office, but you knew that, right? “roll back the future tax cuts … reinstate the Estate tax at a higher limit than last (maybe around 3.5 ro 4 mil)...there are answers.” Funny how the solutions always come down to how to better spend other people’s money. Simple thievery.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#47)
    by Johnny on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:10:18 AM EST
    Jim, I leave the logistics of disbursing universal health care and post-wage-slavery security administration to those more capable than I. We found a way to guarantee that our senators, our reps, our prez, our firemen, our cops, our VA workers, our sewer workers, in fact any gov't worker, to enjoy significantly better social security than non gov't workers. there are known plans that work, and work well. Implement them in the private sector. If you are already retired, you have nothing to lose from the BushCo gift to Wall Street-your bennies are "secure". I am turning 30 in a few weeks, and sad to say have already written off any hope of affordable healthcare, reasonably priced and readily available medications, a sustainable income level, adequate housing, and, well, social security when I turn 72 (which is how long I plan on having to be a full time wage slave). My daughter, who is 4, has even less to look forward to, except I firmly believe that our civilization will come to a grinding halt as soon as the last drop of compressed dead dinosaur is sucked from the earths crust. She will have a whole slew of problems of her own.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:11:29 AM EST
    Funny how the solutions always come down to how to better spend other people’s money. Simple thievery
    Bush already spent the money and took out huge loans tot he Chineese who the hell you think is going to pay it back and how?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:32:30 AM EST
    since the bush administration decided that 26,000 dollars a year makes a veteran rich enough to pay for their own health care (even though it's supposed to be guaranteed to vets), i would look very closely at what bush is going to consider "affluent" enough for a cut in social security benefits. it will be a low number, because bush will never ask the super-rich to act responsibly, but will instead take the money from middle-class earners. isn't it great that we have to bribe the wealthy to keep people out of poverty. nice.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    “Bush already spent the money and took out huge loans tot he Chineese who the hell you think is going to pay it back and how?” Simple, budget cuts. I’ve got the red pen out already.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Bush's solution costs over a trillion dollars (with a t)just to put in place, hence not a solution at all. Anything that adds a trillion to the debt at this stage is bad, bad, bad. We need a third party if you want fiscal conservatives in Washington. Face it folks, if you're under 40, you've been fleeced. Governments are good at that.

    "People actually like mumbling, glassy-eyed inbred retards?" Maybe they do, but the leftist ones who post on this thread must be kept out of political power. Seems so many here do not have even a hint of a clue about the sharp rebuttals Bush answered to leftist objections to SS reform. As usual, no need to think when when your standard-issue leftist can witlessly shuck and jive to the party dogma: Bush: Duuuuuuuummmmmmmmb. SS reform: baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The more you get ticked off at my words, the more you ought to ask yourself if you'd know a good investment if you saw one! If you got a better idea how to invest the SS money, bring it on. If you just spew your venom, you witlessly prove my point. This is my first post today, TL. And to the ones who would call me a "troll", heal yourselves. As Marshall McLuhan once said: "Many a good argument is ruined by some fool who knows what he is talking about."

    kdog, I'll join you there. A real third option would be very good right about now. Not that it would magically solve the issue of Social Security, but it would be a start. I'm still confused as to what is supposed to be so "illiterate" about the line TL quotes. Any idea?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#54)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    Yeah we all know about "Budget cuts". VA bennies SS Medicare/Title 19 NCLB student loans Who gets the breaks? Corporations politicians Weapons makers lying Iraqi expatriots Saudi religious fanatics mercenaries

    "I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." "I believe the reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most, so I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." So Bush proposes that not only will everyone's SS benefits increase, but also that SS benefits will increase MORE for the poor than for the rich. And the WaPo headline is: "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits" Wha?

    This may sound dumb...but what does the average person know about investing money? If everyone were capable of making wise investments with their money, wouldn't the US be full of millionaires by now, or ya'know...not-poor people?

    As he did a year ago, President Bush on Thursday held a rare prime-time press conference to bolster his agenda. But in just one year, the once invincible President Bush finds his agenda failing, his popularity plummeting, nominees like John Bolton stalled and his disciplined party machine beginnning to split at the seams. The political circumstances may have changed, but not the man confronting them. Just as in his disturbing April 13, 2004 press conference, Bush once again displayed his shocking unwillingness to own up to any of his immense inventory of presidential mistakes. While his Rome burns, President Bush fiddles the same tune of stubborn dissembling and infallibility: 1. Social Security: New Story, Same Lies 2. Dubya Goes Both Ways 3. The Party of Ideas 4. The Coming Tax Fraud 5. Vladmir Putin: He Had Me at Hello The more things change, the saying goes, the more things stay the same. Of George W. Bush, truer words were never spoken... For more, see: "The More Things Change"

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#58)
    by roy on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    If everyone were capable of making wise investments with their money, wouldn't the US be full of millionaires by now, or ya'know...not-poor people?
    Only if they had enough money to invest in the first place, with enough diversity to allow some risky bets. If you only invest $100 a month (a struggle for some), even a good 9% return won't make you a millionaire. IIRC, standard of living is rising anyway long-term, even for our poor. So apparently they're able to do more of what they want with their money, even if they aren't getting much more money.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#59)
    by roy on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    (BTW, I was assuming investing over 45 years, compounded weekly. Check my math here.)

    Ern, Please clarify for me: Is your theory then that because not everyone will invest wisely if left to their own resources, the government should stop everyone from investing and just take the money itself? You are right, of course, in that not everyone will invest wisely, but for a large percentage of those under 40, putting the money in a bank savings account is a better deal than Social Security as it exists. Even a minimal 1% is better than a negative return.

    Uh, wow...big 'if' there Roy. =P The average person, with money for lotto tickets (sound investment there), and what-booze and hookers, whatever- is going to make good choices in the stock market? Overall and generally speaking, I mean.

    Sorry, I was under the assumption that this money was to be re-invested personally in the market, not put into a...an interest accruing bank account or something. My bad.

    dadler - Let'sm be specific. The health benefits you refer to are for retired vetereans. Is your complaints about them, or those who only served a shorter time. Johnny - Problem is, SC is not optional. You have to pay it. If I was 30, and could out and have the 12.6% I paid free to invest, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    TL..... GW was asked about "no child left behind". The comment you cited was in response to some people's (the left?) having issues with being able to measure a child' progress. "If you teach a child to read and write, it shouldn't bother you whether you measure." In other words, if the child is actually being taught (and not just passed through the system) it shouldn't bother anyone to be able to measure their progress. However, on the other hand, if schools are just rubber stamping students through, then of course they don't want any measurements taken...make sense now?

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#65)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    Roy - If you were making $60K a year, between you and your employer you would be investing about $7200 a year. At 5% and compounding monthly, which is less than what you used, in 45 years you would have $1,220,000. At $40K, you would invest about $4800, and leaving all else the same, you would have about $814,000. Kinda makes SC look real bad, eh? Thanks for the tool.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#66)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    et al - You should go to your insurance agent and check out annunities. They are exteremly safe, and provide some nice returns. i.e. In 1993 I turned 55, and decided to get most of my money out of the markets. I put it into an annunity that is now paying me about 250% of what I put in, in 240 equal payments. And when I die, I'm assuming my wife survives me, she keeps on getting it. When she dies, our children get the remainder. If they die, the grandchildren get the remainder. Plus, the money was sheltered from taxes, and the tax bracket I am now in is less than what it was all those other years. I had other retirement accounts, plus an investment account. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket is sound advice. So, for your own sake, check out all of the issues, all of the savings and investment vehicles, and quit assuming just because a Repub thinks of it you should automatically oppose it. Believe me. If you depend on SC for your retirement, you are going to have a very miserable time.

    Re: Open Thread: Bush Speech and Social Security (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    jim, retired veteran is an oxymoron. your party is taking money from people they know are largely powerless to lobby and stop it -- ailing veterans. now, if you wanted to do something, you organize vets like aarp does retired people, and pool that power into a solid voting bloc, a union (god forbid the word) of veterans committed to bettering their collective lot through power in numbers. communist, i know, but it works for them geezers.