“We’ll all be listening respectfully to the President.”
(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, News conference on upcoming State Of The Union address, Washington, D.C., 1/31/05)
The Washington Post – “[A]s the president spoke in the house chamber, several Democrats hissed and rumbled ‘no, no, no’ during some of his assertions about Social Security.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – “Throughout Bush’s remarks on Social Security, the reaction of lawmakers broke down dramatically by party, with Republicans offering ovations, and some Democrats hissing and murmuring “No!’ to Bush’s assertions that the system faced a crisis.“
John Roberts (CBS News) – “At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than The United States Congress. I’ve never heard the minority party shout at the President during The State Of The Union Address.“
Tim Russert (NBC News) – “The Democrats have lost two hotly contested presidential elections, and their nerves are frayed. You can feel it in this town, and I think it was reflected on the floor tonight.“
Dana Milbank (Washington Post) – “Democrats participated in ‘outright heckling.’ [B]ush’s rhetoric split the house chamber between the throaty roars of Republican conservatives and the stony silence and occasionally outright heckling of the Democrats.“
“* More importantly, the SS figures (esp. the years 2018 and 2042) are, in fact, facts. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s not a guess, it’s the right side of an equation. Take projected outlays (paid benefits), subtract projected OADSI income (social security tax revenue), and look at the resulting number.”
Projections may be little better than a guess, but they are certainly not “facts”.
I’d just like to say that no, bonds are not “real money”, they are a promise to pay somebody real money sometime in the future.
If the US Government is planning on defaulting on its general treasury bonds then Social Security is the least of our problems. The US dollar would be worthless were that to happen. Economics. Money Supply. Go study it.
I agree that if they DID boo and hiss Clinton, I think its rude and shouldn’t happen.
HOWEVER. We have no idea if it happened or not.
Typical right-wing philosophy: if we don’t like the truth, we will just pretend it is not true. Guess what hotshot: I remember when the Rethugs booed Clinton — wasn’t that long ago. Now get back to your homework.
And Kevin, one more time: Walked right into a trap, like watching goldfish in a bowl.
YOU. GOT. USED.
What on Earth do you think “real money” is other than a promise to transfer something of real value? The fact that you want to convince me that the real money our generation.
Don’t try to explain such basics to these clowns. Remember these are the people who want to teach creationism in schools. They probably think that “real money” is made out of magical paper.
The point is, the bond itself has no value, it is simply a promise to transfer value at some future time. It is, in short, an IOU, just as I said. It is an accounting trick, smoke and mirrors, and should be viewed as such
I can’t stop laughing at your idiotic statements. . . . Can’t wait to tell the bank that the mortgage is just an “accounting trick” that I never have to pay. . . . . . So answer this: what’s “real money?” I really like to get some of that. . . . Did God create it on the sixth day? Is it in Eden?
Oh yeah, I like your solution to a general default: just print more “real money.” Wow, I would really like one o’ dem magical printin’ presses. Again, go back to your homework, I think you study American history in 8th Grade. Come back in 10 years.
James: if you really feel that way, then write the President and his (your?) party to make that case to the people. I think that’s the problem with this discussion… there are lies wrapped in half-truths wrapped around a kernel of ideology that some agree with and others don’t.
Be Honest. Ask your reps to be, too. If you’re against social security, for criminey’s sake, JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT.
I’m happy to have that debate and can be convinced that 401K style accounts and means based “welfare” for the truly destitute retirees is a better choice. We’re not having that debate, though. The President is going around saying that social security is going to implode. He’s acting as if FDR didn’t have actuaries forcast the number of retirees in the 90’s and beyond.
Stop talking about the fiscal problems with social security and make the case for elimination.
You claim references. In case you wondered, I never saw a real “reference” cited. If you wanted to really reference something, you’d use a standardized reference format such as MLA or such.
Or, since this IS a weblog/webpage, the most common way of referencing is LINKING. LINKING.LINKING.LINKING.LINKING.LINKING.
If you had linked, then I would have clicked. I DON’T HAVE TIME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU.
And yes, for the record, I am very seriously arguing that anyone who thinks the Social Security Trust Fund is currently filled with “worthless I.O.U.’s” and that the government obligation to pay current and future retirees a Social Security benefit is some kind of “unfunded liability” or whatever is the scare-phrase of the moment— these people are basically Leninists bent on destroying capitalism itself.
I’m just calling them out for being Useful Idiots.
It’s pretty funny to hear people like, weel, all these lefftist bozos cum moonbats pretend they got any upper hand in all this when they have lose every elction in the least few years.
Guys, if you stop trying so hard you will break lightspeed in reaching a party of zero members.
Cincinnatus,
Exactly what are you trying to do by presenting Usenet-style debate that any 12 year old can put forth? I, for one, am open to reading all sorts of opinion but when someone is playing trash-talk from the security of their PC it really doesn’t say “I’m presenting a well thought out opinion”.
I’m not trying to be smarmy or mean, but you *could* present yourself in an adult manner. That is, if your intention is to do anything OTHER than drive-by comment, which anyone can do.
All that said, I recall the GOP semi-cackling Clinton during his tenure. I don’t know if it was “booing” but it was unbecoming behavior. They learned & straightened up the rest of the time.
We have no idea if it happened or not. POST LINKS, or we’ll assume you don’t have any and are spouting shit out of your ass. I shouldn’t have to do the fact checking in YOUR arguments either. FactJeck, Tony the Pony, Davebo, NEXT TIME POST LINKS ALONG WITH YOUR SO-CALLED HISTORY OF EVENTS. OTHERWISE.
Posted by: Henry
From the Minnesota Daily’s website – http://www.mndaily.com/daily/gopher-archives/1995/01/25/WNUNION.STO.txt
So, Henry…can we expect you to admit that the Republicans booed TEN YEARS before you were morally outraged about a lack of respect for a President at the State Of The Union?
I don’t suppose I should wait for an apology, huh?
I DON’T HAVE TIME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU.
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 10:16 PM
Other posts by you
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 10:16 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 09:55 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 08:34 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 07:18 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 07:11 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 06:55 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 06:54 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 02:28 PM
Posted by: Henry at February 3, 2005 02:10 PM
Seems to me you have PLENTY of time to do research.
These Canadians that are showing up in droves using an American product (Google) to Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V the entire range of propaganda into as many blogs as possible.
These pussies were all over slashdot today crying about the President’s request to revive the Patriot act – specifically the impact on their ability to do “private” business through our transgate services – IN SERVERS IN THE UNITED STATES and suddenly fearing the US government’s mighty intelligence wrath.
Ironically, it’s also something that they have been bitching constantly – the US Government’s LACK of intelligence up until last night’s SOTU address.
Please notice that since there’s not World Bank protests, PETA assaults on PFK or NHL, they’ll constantly bitch about everything American with one exception – “citizenship”. Now, I like Canada, even Montreal, but they will try to tell us a variety of things like it costs less to live there to the idea that they suddenly care about our tax dollars.
As far as the news and blogs that we read daily, folks from other countries now have something that they have longed for for quite some time…
…a direct channel into your face as a United States citizen in your home or place of business to tell you that you are wrong. So be head’s up as to who is talking to you.
While their opinions are welcome here in the U.S. for some reason, I’m comforted by the fact that there are dead bodies in Washington state that have more say in the American political system than these posers. They somehow conveniently forget to tell us where they are from, and that all of the sudden they care about who boos who.
If equity returns are what the privitization plan proposed by GWB say are, then the conservative estimates on economic growth put forward to get to the 2042 70% benefits reduction are not tennable. Equites will grow at 7% real (remember to add inflation to get nominal) but productivity will grow at only 1%? Not likley.
Our social security is being sold to the highest bidder. Don’t let them take it from us. There is no crisis.
“Under the current system, without any changes to it, you aren’t paying for anyone else’s retirement. The U.S. Treasury is cutting the checks. And no— the treasury isn’t drawing the checks from your personal checking account.”
You might like to think the money collected under the payroll tax is somehow “yours” but it isn’t, and it never was.”
One who strains to break the bounds of reality as ardently as this fool ought not to be graced with a reply, but I’ll point out one thing that should have, at the very least, given the moron pause before posting the comment: If you are going to assert the income I earn from any employment is not mine; if you claim that my productive work does not belong to me, then what right do I have to use ANYTHING of what I make at my job without the consent of the state?
Charles Hueter> If you are going to assert the income I earn from any employment is not mine; if you claim that my productive work does not belong to me, then what right do I have to use ANYTHING of what I make at my job without the consent of the state?
That’s the typical whine of an anarchist. There’s a reason sensible people have always been a little concerned about those types.
p1. I did not (and do not) assert that income we earn from our employment is not ours. I would say the opposite is a better view.
p2. I did not (and do not) assert that the product of our labor does not (or should not) belong to us. Again, I would say the opposite a better view.
p3. The fact that our income and the product of our labor is our property does not settle anything about who else (including the state) may have legitimate claims to a portion of it.
Anyone who thinks that the state has no legitimate claim to a portion of our incomes or the product of our labor is, by definition, an anarchist, and ought to be treated like one. The revenues collected in the U.S. under the payroll tax pass directly from employers to the state without employees ever possessing it. It is, therefore, not ours at any point in the process.
if you had linked, then I would have clicked. I DON’T HAVE TIME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU.
henry, thats really weak on your part, especially where you ask for MLA format references…the articles gave you the dates, and where they came from.
your argument was shot down, just admit it. its not the end of the world.
How would you treat me then?
My criticism’s scope applies to more than just single citizens. What about the individuals that own a business? Assuming you are correct, it doesn’t change the situation any that they are taxed rather than the other employees. The nature of an employee being taxed and an employer being taxed remains identical, because both have earned their wealth and property. Again, by what right do those people have to use anything without the consent of the state?
I was yelling at the TV myself because “W” was outright lying about Social Security — and I’m thoroughly sick of it.
Depending on trends such as economic growth, birthrate, immigration and life-span, Social Security may well be sound for generations. The real problem is federal budget deficits, in a nutshell. Not Social Security.
With that in mind, have you ever noticed that the Bush White House confidently predicts robust economic growth in coming decades when arguing to make their tax cuts permanent; but when discussing their scheme to dismantle Social Security, they just as confidently cite the Social Security actuaries’ prediction that the economy wil soon slow to a crawl for the next 40 years. Why not flip the script? If the economy continues to grow with typical robustness, payroll tax revenues will be much higher than the Social Security trustees predict, and there will likely never be a shortfall in Social Security. Visit BUSHSOCIALSECURITYPLAN.COM to see what “W” is really proposing.