- #1
polyb
- 67
- 0
Hey, has anyone seen the applause sign in the congress? :rofl:
This is more like a pep rally with a string of soundbites!:yuck:
This is more like a pep rally with a string of soundbites!:yuck:
Well, that's the way they all go. They actually build-in "applause lines" to the speech with marks on the teleprompter telling the president where to pause for applause.Hurkyl said:Ah, so I'm not the only one that found that odd. I've never really watched one before (and I'm not really watching this one either)
russ_watters said:Well, that's the way they all go. They actually build-in "applause lines" to the speech with marks on the teleprompter telling the president where to pause for applause.
The best part of the speech was when my hippie, knee-jerk reaction liberal roommate got back from his gig, started cursing at the TV before sitting down, let out a 20 second stream of profanities right after sitting down, then got up and left.
Moonbear said:Well, surprisingly, this speech didn't completely nauseate me, nor did I get irritated with Bush's usual speech impediments (he was actually really careful with all his words, even if nuk-yoo-lar still sounds like nails on a blackboard to me).
Moonbear said::rofl: I actually listened to this one. You can tell which side of the room each party was on, because the standing ovations were all from one side. Well, surprisingly, this speech didn't completely nauseate me, nor did I get irritated with Bush's usual speech impediments (he was actually really careful with all his words, even if nuk-yoo-lar still sounds like nails on a blackboard to me). This time, I was irritated instead by the Democrats giving their commentary afterward. He actually really had given them the best they might have hoped for in relaxing his stance a bit on HOW to reform Social Security, and instead going with SOMETHING has to be done, and pointed out many suggestions from both sides that should be discussed, but really emphasized the Democratic ideas this time. So, then they were still complaining and saying it couldn't be done and he wasn't telling about all the costs, etc. Well, working out all those details are their job and they were THEIR ideas he was suggesting. You can't give that many details when covering that many topics in such a short time. We sure didn't need to listen to another long-winded State of the Union like Clinton used to give.
Oh, but the funniest part was at some totally inappropriate time, someone in the audience started applauding, as if they were just clapping at every pause and not listening to anything. :rofl: I wish the cameras had found that person.
franznietzsche said:Bottom line is that the democrats don't want social security to be fixed, at least not while bush is in office. Its basically a political turf war. Whichever party has the president when the reform is accomplished wins a major political coup. Neither side actually ives a rats ass about what's good for the american people. The democrats are very clearly displaying that they just don't care. All they care about is their power. Like i said this is true of both parties, but at the moment its the democrats who are being obstructionist to our detriment.
Moonbear said:Sadly, that's usually the case. One of the political analysts I heard after the State of the Union aired commented that there's no incentive for the Democrats to push ahead on Social Security reform because they aren't getting an voter pressure to do it. So, if we started to threaten not to re-elect our Democratic senators and representatives if they don't do something about it this term, then they might have incentive to actually work on the issue rather than being obstructionist.
From what I'm hearing, the Bush plan wouldn't be an enema of any sort - you'd get less benefits and a relatively small percent of the money would go into a personal account which you could use to invest in one of a few government-approved mutual funds which the Government thinks will make sufficient amounts of money for you. The old system stays in place, just a portion of the money from it is diverted, and the problems Bush is talking about stay with the system.franznietzsche said:Personally, I'm fully in favor of giving the system one giant enema, flushing all the crap that is washington out and replacing it. I'm sick of all this crap from them.
wasteofo2 said:From what I'm hearing, the Bush plan wouldn't be an enema of any sort - you'd get less benefits and a relatively small percent of the money would go into a personal account which you could use to invest in one of a few government-approved mutual funds which the Government thinks will make sufficient amounts of money for you. The old system stays in place, just a portion of the money from it is diverted, and the problems Bush is talking about stay with the system.
And the Democrats offer no alternative plans, because they suck and Howard Dean hasn't taken the chairmansip of the party. Like him or not, you've got to admit that a Democratic Party controlled by Howard Dean would at least do something.
I think 65 is old enough. Not that many people are living quality lives well past 65. Retirement shouldn't be just before you die.Smurf said:I think the retirement age of 65 is OK, and 70 is too high, if you want to raise it don't raise it too high.
But it really depends on a persons health wether or not they can retire, as I think is the case when people retire early, they're of too poor health to continue (correct me if I am wrong). Really I don't know how social security works in the states but I don't see any reason to change it.
No. No one in the US knows that because government inequities are always the taking from the rich to give to the poor - not the other way around.Loren Booda said:Do any of us know what it is like to work hard (not Bushed-out hard), struggle all of our lives and to end up in stark poverty because of an inequitable government?
That's simply an incorrect characterization of the stock market. With mutual funds, any investor can invest with the same power as a billionaire. And the gamble is simply a gamble that in the next 15-50 years we won't have a prolonged great depression. Its not much of a gamble.The destitute can little afford to gamble their future on a stock market biased against either small investors, those unfamiliar with speculating, or those unsustained by the people as a whole.
Loren Booda said:Social Security is intended to allow people a semblance of financial survival and dignity into their old age. Assuming the rich in America to have much more of the former and a modicum of the latter, why would it hurt to reduce somewhat Social Security payments to the wealthy (who have many sources of retirement income) for the working class of their generation? Do any of us know what it is like to work hard (not Bushed-out hard), struggle all of our lives and to end up in stark poverty because of an inequitable government? The destitute can little afford to gamble their future on a stock market biased against either small investors, those unfamiliar with speculating, or those unsustained by the people as a whole.
Loren Booda said:Social Security is intended to allow people a semblance of financial survival and dignity into their old age. Assuming the rich in America to have much more of the former and a modicum of the latter, why would it hurt to reduce somewhat Social Security payments to the wealthy (who have many sources of retirement income) for the working class of their generation? Do any of us know what it is like to work hard (not Bushed-out hard), struggle all of our lives and to end up in stark poverty because of an inequitable government? The destitute can little afford to gamble their future on a stock market biased against either small investors, those unfamiliar with speculating, or those unsustained by the people as a whole.
russ_watters said:If SS is supposed to be welfare, make it welfare - but I suspect the AARP wouldn't like that name change because of what it implies. Its dual-purpose nature means that it doesn't do either particularly well.
I agree - people can't handle the responsibility (sad), so I'd still make it mandatory (like in the Bush plan). I don't know what fraction of SS is the welfare part, but if its half, you could keep that half paying for the welfare and open up the other half for voluntary investing. And here (imo) is the beautiful part: if you tax the returns like a loaded mutual fund, the program, while a short-term loser for the government, would in maybe a decade become an enormous cash-cow. Eventually, you could make all 15% eligible for investing and the gov't could pay for the welfare portion from the taxes of the earnings in the retirement account portion.Moonbear said:I agree, the problem isn't that bond funds aren't better off than social security. Heck, social security is probably negative growth if you really looked into it. It's that if you give people that money in their paycheck, they won't save it, they'll do what they do with the rest of their paycheck, have it spent out in a week.
russ_watters said:I agree - people can't handle the responsibility (sad), so I'd still make it mandatory (like in the Bush plan). I don't know what fraction of SS is the welfare part, but if its half, you could keep that half paying for the welfare and open up the other half for voluntary investing. And here (imo) is the beautiful part: if you tax the returns like a loaded mutual fund, the program, while a short-term loser for the government, would in maybe a decade become an enormous cash-cow. Eventually, you could make all 15% eligible for investing and the gov't could pay for the welfare portion from the taxes of the earnings in the retirement account portion.
Just saw that...no, just needed to get out of that nun's habit. It would be fun to do before I get too old that I'd scare the young people if I...:uhh:...nevermind. Too many people out there with videocameras nowadays though, spoiling all the anonymous fun.edit: btw, are you headed to Mardi Gras?
polyb said:I have a friend who went 50k into debt just to teach high school physics that he has to pay back on that salary. I really don't think you should have to go so far into debt just for accreditation
No, I'm not quite that naive...Moonbear said:It's actually not a bad idea, but do you think it will ever happen?
Moonbear said:I actually thought the list of suggestions for Social Security, all taken together, which included some of the Democratic suggestions as well, made sense. The main one, which is a small starting place, is to not let people start drawing out early. This makes sense to me. Someone who retires early not only starts taking out money after it has had less time to accrue interest, but also after contributing for fewer years. If you want to retire early, do it the old-fashioned way, get rich while young.
There was also a suggestion to raise the retirement age. Again, people are living longer, and are productive longer. The retirement age of 65 fits a different generation.
There was a suggestion to reduce benefits for the wealthy. In other words, make it more like insurance against poverty in retirement, which is really what it was created to do. If someone can afford to live without social security, will they even notice not getting it? If they do outlive their savings, then they will still have the social security for their later years.
I'm still uneasy about the idea of people investing part of the money (whether you want to call it a personal account or a private account). The reason is that people losing their savings during the Great Depression is why Social Security was considered a necessity in the first place. To put the money into personal funds is much more of a gamble. The other risk is if some of the other plans are implemented, the wealthy, who might not expect to get anything back, or who don't need to get anything out of the SS system if it collapses, are more likely to keep their money out of it and shortchange the system further.
I remember the griping back when my parents' generation was told the retirement age was being raised from 62 to 65. Nobody wants to tell people they have to wait longer to retire, but the reality is, something that drastic has to happen.
Does anyone have any better ideas? If you're going to complain that Congress isn't doing anything and doesn't care, is there a great idea you have that they aren't listening to?
Why, you must hate America...franznietzsche said:Drag the country into a rotting cesspool of socialist idiocy is not what i would prefer,
I despise bush. But i despised kerry more.
when i speak of enema, i mean getting rid of it all. a metaphorical atomic bomb wiping out washingotn.
Curious3141 said:Very interesting. Bush seems to be moving towards a model that Singapore has had for a long time : the Central Provident Fund or CPF for short. Of course, our model is more all encompassing and entrenched, but your leader seems to be sympathetic to this sort of thinking in principle.
In the CPF model, citizens are forced to put aside a hefty portion (a fixed percentage, dependent on salary bracket, I'm paying nearly 20 %) of their pre-tax salaries into government administered accounts. This money cannot be withdrawn even in part before the age of 55, and under recently introduced laws, cannot be withdrawn completely *ever* unless citizenship is renounced.
CPF money is supposed to support the elderly when they become economically non-viable and their dependents don't support them. Our government doesn't want to be stuck with the encumberance of looking after a massive load of aging people (who've slogged for the nation in their best years) with a welfare scheme, so they have this. There are some allowances in the use of CPF, for instance, investing in property is allowed using CPF monies, but replenishment of CPF is mandatory, with interest. The CPF can be used to invest in blue chip shares (non-speculative) but all dividends and capital gains have to come back into the CPF.
How does your intended system compare ?
Smurf said:Is it true you can get fined $10,000 for spitting in singapore?