Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on February 07, 2005, 09:54:17 AM
-
Excerpts from the AP Wire story:
...One of the most politically sensitive targets on Bush's hit list is the government support program for farmers, which he wants to trim by $5.7 billion over the next decade, which would represent cuts to farmers growing a wide range of cuts from cotton and rice to corn, soybeans and wheat.
Overall, the administration projected saving $8.2 billion in agriculture programs over the next decade including trimming food stamp payments to the poor by $1.1 billion.
...About one-third of the programs being targeted for elimination are in the Education Department, including federal grant programs for local schools in such areas as vocational education, anti-drug efforts and Even Start, a $225 million literacy program.
In all, the president proposed savings of $137 billion over 10 years in mandatory programs with much of that occurring in reductions in Medicaid, the big federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, and in payments the Veterans Administration makes for health care....
I'm thinking that the Red state farmers aren't going to appreciate the $5.7 billion cut in government farm support programs.
Basically though, I think this is a beautiful budget, in that it sums up alot of what Bush is about. Cuts in food and healthcare to the poor, education, cuts against farmers, cuts in veterans' health benefits. All to finance continued tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. This is one thing I don't understand about the Red state support for Bush. I mean, those poor people are getting whacked in the economic face with a 2x4. Why would all those common, decent folk in the Red states favor tax cuts for the wealthy over help to the needy, for education, for veterans?
Just my opinion, though. I'm sure there are some cuts in programs in there that deserve to be cut. Still I can't help but wonder how much progress in deficit reduction could be made if the cuts were combined with a rollback of the "temporary" tax cuts for the wealthy.
Coupla other points, apparently alot of these "cuts" are cost shifts, and "explode" in 5 years, after Bush is out of the White House. And apparently the recently requested additional $80 billion for Iraq is not in the budget. Why not?
-
Originally posted by oboe
This is one thing I don't understand about the Red state support for Bush. I mean, those poor people are getting whacked in the economic face with a 2x4. Why would all those common, decent folk in the Red states favor tax cuts for the wealthy over help to the needy, for education, for veterans?
It's a bit of a trade off. Yes, the red states might be getting screwed. And yes, it may seem a bit strange in the face of their overwhelming support for Bush. But you have to keep in mind that Bush has the resolve to protect the red states from terrorist attacks on their farms. I think that trumps any amount of economic hardship.
-
As someone who works at a school I can see why he plans to cut some programs.
Just because the money goes to a school doesn't mean it's being used correctly.
I see so much wasted money on Inclusion and Fine Arts.... etc etc. (And no I don't mean get rid of all of them but trim the waste.)
-
I volunteer in my son's school and I agree about the waste. They have row after row of brand new I-macs, but have 30+ kids per teacher. I think I'd be tempted to dump all the computers and rely on cast-offs and donated machines from local businesses, while using the extra money to hire another teacher to reduce class sizes.
The incompetence of school boards made an impression even on Mark Twain, who remarked: "First, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then He created school boards."
My own school district is now closing two elementary schools due to a forecasted reduction in student enrollment. Which would be fine but the paint isn't even dry on one of the schools after the remodelling effort may possible when the most recent referendum passed. No wonder voters are starting to reject school district levies. Too bad-- its the kids that lose when poor management like this is punished.
So yeah, targeted education cuts may be well deserved. But cuts to veterans health benefits (in a time of war no less), so that the wealthiest Americans can sustain a tax break?
-
Yeah, Bush is going to cut Federal funding to schools to trim his budget. Guess what will happen? Local taxes will be increased to make up for the shortfall.
He is screwing the farm states by cutting subsidies. Think that will force the last of the family farms out of business while the coroprate farms gobble them up and get to write the aquisitions off their taxes? Expect rising food costs as well.
He wants to cut the amount of money going into Social Security and divert that to the stock market. Any British retirees care to tell us how the plan Maggie Thatcher put in place worked out?
The cherry on top? Cut veteran's funding, cut food stamps, cut medicare. You know, the people that need it the most. Continue tax breaks to the wealthiest. You know, the people that need it the least, but donate to his campaign.
Get ready America. It's coming with no kiss or vasilene.
-
it is a proposed budget. congress needs to get its two houses to agree then they have to send back to the admin and so on and so fourth until everyone agrees. Thank god the courts arent part of the process lol
-
It really must be easy when you put it simple terms.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest, no food for the poor. Bwahhh! What's next, let them eat cake?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
it is a proposed budget. congress needs to get its two houses to agree then they have to send back to the admin and so on and so fourth until everyone agrees. Thank god the courts arent part of the process lol
It's Bush's proposed budget, and as such shows the priorities of his administration. In fact there are some targeted increases in some education programs in there.
How do you feel, Yeager, about cuts to veterans health care benefits?
-
Originally posted by oboe
It's Bush's proposed budget, and as such shows the priorities of his administration. In fact there are some targeted increases in some education programs in there.
How do you feel, Yeager, about cuts to veterans health care benefits?
Targeted decreases in wasteful programs. Targeted decreases in welfare programs.
Targeted decreases in government sinkholes.
Tax programs that are more fair.
Sounds like a good budget to me.
-
i heard vets benifits have gone up 40% from 2001.
-
The Democrats answer to any budget crisis is to raise taxes. The only cuts they will ever support is defense and homeland security.
Did anyone see the Joker (Nancy Pelosi) on "this week" with George Stephanopoulos? She was asked what the dems counter to Bush's SS plan was. She didn't even try to answer the question. The pattern is consistent, scream blue bloody murder at anything and everything GWB proposes and counter with nothing.
-
Yes...see a week ago, everyone wanted the deficit addressed and reduce spending. This week, everyone is screaming NOOOO....NOT MY PROGRAMS...THEIRS!
:rolleyes: :p
-
Budgets (http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Budget+at+a+Glance+source%3Ayahoo&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, Bush is going to cut Federal funding to schools to trim his budget. Guess what will happen? Local taxes will be increased to make up for the shortfall.
He is screwing the farm states by cutting subsidies. Think that will force the last of the family farms out of business while the coroprate farms gobble them up and get to write the aquisitions off their taxes? Expect rising food costs as well.
He wants to cut the amount of money going into Social Security and divert that to the stock market. Any British retirees care to tell us how the plan Maggie Thatcher put in place worked out?
The cherry on top? Cut veteran's funding, cut food stamps, cut medicare. You know, the people that need it the most. Continue tax breaks to the wealthiest. You know, the people that need it the least, but donate to his campaign.
Get ready America. It's coming with no kiss or vasilene.
Originally posted by rpm
Sure, let me use small words to make it easier.
1) Improve education.
2) Do 2 years national service, get 4 years tuition.
3) Fire Ashcroft.
4) Clean up the environment and develop alternative energy.
5) Mend the diplomatic bridges Bush has burned and get the world united against terrorism.
6) Affordable health care, nuff said.
7) Start rewarding companies that help America instead of ones bleeding it dry.
8) Shift the economy to where the working middle class can thrive.
9) Lower the deficit.
10) Restrict lobbying.
Simple enough?
Don't expect me to explain his entire platform. I gave you the links, use them.
Originally posted by rpm
Let me make my stance clear. Lower spending and social freedom are my motivating forces. We are creating a debt faster than any point in history while we do little on the social front.
Flipflop.
-
Here's what the President of the VFW had to say:
VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief
Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."
VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.
How do you classify spending on veteran's health benefits, Martlet? Wasteful program, welfare or government sinkhole?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Here's what the President of the VFW had to say:
VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief
How do you classify spending on veteran's health benefits, Martlet? Wasteful program, welfare or government sinkhole?
I classify it a 500 billion dollar INCREASE. I have absolutely zero complaint about MY benefits, thanks.
-
I thought the cut proposals were pretty hilarous compared to the billions being spent in Iraq which was of course left out of the budget. LOL
...-Gixer
-
Gixer, the US is at war......we are going to fund it.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The Democrats answer to any budget crisis is to raise taxes. The only cuts they will ever support is defense and homeland security.
Did anyone see the Joker (Nancy Pelosi) on "this week" with George Stephanopoulos? She was asked what the dems counter to Bush's SS plan was. She didn't even try to answer the question. The pattern is consistent, scream blue bloody murder at anything and everything GWB proposes and counter with nothing.
Maybe I missed it but, didnt GB just give us a vague idea with no real plan?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I classify it a 500 billion dollar INCREASE. I have absolutely zero complaint about MY benefits, thanks.
Well, it's 500 million, not 500 billion. But I know what you meant. I take it you are a veteran, and disagree with the President of the VFW on the sufficiency of the funding. Its good that you are satisfied with your benefits. What about your fellow servicemen, who according to VFW Pres. Banas are "...waiting by the thousands for six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA"? Are you satisfied with their benefits? To me its seems a helluva way to treat people who spilled their blood and broke their bodies in the service of this nation.
Here's a link to the story: http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576 (http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576)
And whether we ever see eye to eye on this or not, Martlet, let me thank you for your service.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, the US is at war......we are going to fund it.
No doubt but at Bush's expendature rate how many geberations is it going to take to pay for it?
...-Gixer
-
There should be some money for me in the budget. I dont know why there never is.
It's a totaly fluffied up system.
I should pay less taxes also
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
As someone who works at a school I can see why he plans to cut some programs.
Just because the money goes to a school doesn't mean it's being used correctly.
I see so much wasted money on Inclusion and Fine Arts.... etc etc. (And no I don't mean get rid of all of them but trim the waste.)
as a graduate of the fine arts i would like to personally invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.
there is nothing like someone claiming that arts programs are sucking up all of the money when every program that i have ever been affiliated with has been starving for funds because some short sighted idiot cant see the worth of a little culture here and there.
fact. most arts programs have a meager percentage of the funding that other programs have.
last time you watched a good film you were watching the work of a former arts student of film, illustration, animation or sculptural arts.
i can never quite understand how one cant see the value of arts education when they see a well designed interior a good book or hear a beautiful song must think that these things grow on trees or just happen to be.
what waste? ive never seen an arts program that has all of the new equiptment that a science or an engineering dept does. not that we need much, but last time i checked most of the equiptment that is any given art dept was donated and ancient because they couldnt get the funding.
wow.
ring ring. pick up the clue phone.
-
Hit a little tender spot did he?
-
its just a dumb arguement holden. look up the percentages of funding. im sure you will quickly see how silly that arguement is.
and im not even one to support the NEA.
(no need to have the government looking into my studio thanks...and i really dont want the handout...unlike some porkfat out there...hey we need to do a study on the migratory patterns of the eastern bimoserous bird and archive its mating habits...um ya...whatever.)
-
If your schools are anything like Oregon's, much of the cost of any class has nothing to do with the class.
If they cut overhead (read Administration) they could pick up alot of the music and arts programs, pay for better equipment for the science classes and probably bring back many of the extra-curriculars.
The highest paid people in schools don't teach. That should change.
-
maybe so, from what i know that is a true observation.
but you seem to presume that cultural arts are something that can be added if money is saved.
these things are not extracurricular.
they are as vital to any thriving society as any other subjects... and i dont consider them to be excess or anything less than core.
-
No offence, but they are second tier after the primary tier, the three R's.
A school budget that is flush with funds can afford many things past those three R's, like semi-vital things like science, arts, shop, etc.
Arts is certainly a driving force in humanity. Even barely surviving cavemen found time for the arts.
-
i wont argue that with you.
obviously there are some basics that come first. (a kid who cant read isnt going to appreciate much anyway)
i am just suggesting the mere notion that the arts are sucking up any real significant portion of any given budget is just plain ludicrous.
but hey, im all for full funding for the majorettes.
and oh what i couldnt make with 80 billion dollars. cecile b wouldnt have a thing on that kind of production eh? lol.
-
jb88-
If the 80 billion dollars you refer to is the latest request for funding of Bush's war in Iraq, it's not in his budget. After all is said and done with the budget, that 80 billion gets tacked on as 'supplemental' spending...
-
all i am saying is that for 80 billion dollars i could resurrect elvis for a reshoot of blue hawaii.
:)
-
Resurrect?
I was just talking to him the other day and he said he wouldn't come out of hiding and blow his cover for less than $90 B.
-
<----- writing my congressmen.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Flipflop.
You can lower spending without gutting social programs and family farms. Want a one word answer? Greed.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Budgets (http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Budget+at+a+Glance+source%3Ayahoo&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt)
[so much for the BUUUSSHH hates the poor]
Thanks oneword.
Department of Education Budget at a Glance
Mon Feb 7, 4:00 PM ET White House - AP
Agency: Department of Education (news - web sites)
Spending: $56 billion
Percentage change from 2005: -1 percent
Mandatory outlays: $7.4 billion
Total Spending: $63.4 billion
Highlights:
_ Would increase aid to poor districts by 4.7 percent , to $13.3 billion.
_ Would end 48 programs and reduce spending on 16 others to free $4.7 billion for other priorities. A third of the federal programs Bush promised to cut in his budget are in the Education Department. All federal spending on vocational education, $1.2 billion, would be eliminated and redirected toward other high school initiatives.
_ Would spend almost $18 billion on Pell Grants to help poor students attend college, an increase of 45 percent. That money would come mainly from deep cuts in subsidies to lenders.
_ Would spend $200 million to help high school students who read below grade level. That would be an eight-fold increase in the program's current budget.
_ Would create a $500 million fund to reward teachers whose students make great progress.
_ Would end $438 million in state grants for safe and drug-free schools. Related national programs would get more money, but overall funding for safe schools would drop $355 million.
The start of Bush's second-term school agenda has two big themes: expanding his No Child Left Behind law in high schools, and overhauling federal aid for college students.
But to pay for it, Bush is calling for major cuts, too, and Congress may balk. Overall education spending would drop slightly in 2006 after increasing yearly during his first term.
Bush is shifting focus from early grades to high schools, with more than $2 billion in help for struggling students, math and science partnerships and Advanced Placement tests. He would require state math and reading testing in grades nine to 11, an expansion of two years.
"We want to make sure that when children get into high school, they have an opportunity for rigorous academic courses," said Ray Simon, assistant education secretary.
At the same time, Bush would cut almost $2 billion in popular high school programs deemed "ineffective," including vocational education, Upward Bound, Talent Search and GEAR UP.
The ranking Democrat on the Senate education committee, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, called for Congress to reject the education budget. "The administration is going to find out that people believe we need to invest in our children," he said.
-
Budget Glance: Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Mon Feb 7, 6:23 PM ET White House - AP
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs (news - web sites)
Spending: $33.4 billion
Percentage change from 2005: + 2.7 percent
Mandatory Outlays: $37.9 billion
Total Spending: $71.3 billion
Highlights:
_ Would raise medical care spending from $21.6 billion to $22.4 billion.
_ Would increase spending by $240 million on inpatient care for veterans with problems related to mental illness, including alcohol and drug use.
After four years of increases in the agency's budget, President Bush (news - web sites) wants veterans to start picking up more of the tab.
He asks veterans who have the highest incomes among those seeking VA health care and who do not have service-connected illnesses or injuries to pay a $250 annual fee. Bush also wants to increase prescription drug co-payments for such veterans from $7 to $15 for a 30-day drug supply. More than 2 million veterans could be affected.
The fees make up much of the increase in medical care spending.
Bush has made similar requests in previous budgets, only to be soundly rejected by members of Congress. But the environment is different this year with new House and Senate veterans affairs committee chairmen, at least one of whom has been supportive of Bush's efforts to focus resources on certain veterans.
"Any (fee) increase is going to be shifting the cost on the back of veterans," said Dave Autry, Disabled American Veterans spokesman. "Vets are owed a debt and the government has said they are eligible for health care. The government needs to pay for it. It's a continuing cost of our national defense."
The spending plan eliminates funding for one year for state grants for extended care of veterans in state-sponsored nursing homes. About $104 million was provided for the program in 2005.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Maybe I missed it but, didnt GB just give us a vague idea with no real plan?
The budget is vague? It looks to be spelled out to me.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The budget is vague? It looks to be spelled out to me.
Wrong vague idea.. 8)
-
Originally posted by JBA
[so much for the BUUUSSHH hates the poor]
In case you missed these items in the original post from the AP wire:
...including trimming food stamp payments to the poor by $1.1 billion...
...the president proposed savings of $137 billion over 10 years in mandatory programs with much of that occurring in reductions in Medicaid, the big federal-state program that provides health care for the poor...
-
oboe dude, its politics. get a grip. This is a proposed budget and yes, there are things being proposed I do not like. Thats where I contact my representative and voice my opinions, if I so choose.
Jeepers :rofl
-
Originally posted by oboe
Here's what the President of the VFW had to say:
VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief
"VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. 'This funding package is a disgrace and a sham,' Banas said."
How do you classify spending on veteran's health benefits, Martlet? Wasteful program, welfare or government sinkhole?
So, VFW get half a billion increase. Couple that with a dramatic increase in death benefits to soldiers' survivors. Sounds like this admin is trying to do the right thing by the military, and using their heads about it instead of indiscriminately throwing money at a problem, as the Dems are wont to do.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Well, it's 500 million, not 500 billion. But I know what you meant. I take it you are a veteran, and disagree with the President of the VFW on the sufficiency of the funding. Its good that you are satisfied with your benefits. What about your fellow servicemen, who according to VFW Pres. Banas are "...waiting by the thousands for six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA"? Are you satisfied with their benefits? To me its seems a helluva way to treat people who spilled their blood and broke their bodies in the service of this nation.
Here's a link to the story: http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576 (http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576)
And whether we ever see eye to eye on this or not, Martlet, let me thank you for your service.
Bush wants veteran's without service related medical conditions to accept more responsibility. I don't see anything wrong with that. The people that spilled their blood and broke their bodies would be unaffected.
-
The President proposes, the Congress disposes.
This budget, like every budet from every President is merely the place that Congress starts. From here on, the President is pretty much on the sidelines and not as Coach but as Cheerleader.
This budget and the final budget will bear little resemblance to each other.
You heard it here first.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
oboe dude, its politics. get a grip. This is a proposed budget and yes, there are things being proposed I do not like. Thats where I contact my representative and voice my opinions, if I so choose.
Jeepers :rofl
Agreed. I'm better now. Especially after Martlet clarified that veterans with service-related medical conditions would be unaffected by the cost increases for medical care. You shoulda seen the post I deleted!:rolleyes:
I am sure I could find things in there I think are OK and things I don't. I'm not opposed to all the cuts, but what rubs me the wrong way is cuts in programs to the needy coupled with continued tax breaks for the wealthiest. It just doesn't seem very Christian to me.
-
Originally posted by oboe
. It just doesn't seem very Christian to me.
Politics isn't allowed to be Christian anymore, remember?
-
Originally posted by Toad
The President proposes, the Congress disposes.
This budget, like every budet from every President is merely the place that Congress starts. From here on, the President is pretty much on the sidelines and not as Coach but as Cheerleader.
This budget and the final budget will bear little resemblance to each other.
You heard it here first.
Interesting. Is this not how the State of the Union speech regarding social security changes will go? Hypothetical, say Bush could work out plan, so brilliant it would change retirement forever for the good, it still wouldn’t matter, as it will never, ever pass in Congress, right?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Politics isn't allowed to be Christian anymore, remember?
Bush seems to wear his Christianity on his sleeve when it suits his purpose. In that he is no different than most politicians.
Now in Minnesota, we once had a governor who told us religion was a crutch for the weak-minded. There were definitely things about Jesse that I liked and respected. Not that I agreed with, but at least he said what he believed.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Bush seems to wear his Christianity on his sleeve when it suits his purpose. In that he is no different than most politicians.
Now in Minnesota, we once had a governor who told us religion was a crutch for the weak-minded. There were definitely things about Jesse that I liked and respected. Not that I agreed with, but at least he said what he believed.
Maybe Bush does too...
How do you know Ventura wasnt just wearing his atheism on his sleeve to please his audience....
-
Good point, Grun. My answer that Jesse didn't say one thing and do another. If he said something, he meant it. And it got him in trouble alot. And sometimes he was wrong about things (example - he gave away "Jesse checks" returning taxes out of the state's surplus 'rainy day fund' to the taxpayers - and then the economy tanked and the state had a much rougher time weathering the economic storm because it had no cushion - thus we had to relearn the lesson of what a 'rainy day' fund is for).
He had a lot of potential, but in the end his thin skin and feud with the press corps seemed to do him in.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Good point, Grun. My answer that Jesse didn't say one thing and do another. If he said something, he meant it. And it got him in trouble alot. And sometimes he was wrong about things (example - he gave away "Jesse checks" returning taxes out of the state's surplus 'rainy day fund' to the taxpayers - and then the economy tanked and the state had a much rougher time weathering the economic storm because it had no cushion - thus we had to relearn the lesson of what a 'rainy day' fund is for).
He had a lot of potential, but in the end his thin skin and feud with the press corps seemed to do him in.
Where has Bush said one thing and done another?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The budget is vague? It looks to be spelled out to me.
Ahhh I thought we were talking SS..
-
seems Bush is slowing the increase in spending.. He should just dismantle the fine arts programs tho since they turn out gay losers like jb88.
Bush seems to be slowing the increase in spending on all social programs across the board. All the people on here who claim to be "fiscally conservative and socialy liberal" are being proven to be absolutely flaming liberal in all matters.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Where has Bush said one thing and done another?
I'll give you a few off the top of my head -
Do you remember his promise to hunt down Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice? He got sidetracked with plans to invade Iraq, and then later said he didn't know and it didn't matter where Osama was.
Do you remember him saying (election promise) he was going to propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? He has since backed off that one too.
And then there was his promise 'not to touch' Social Security, which he made just before the election, after some newspaper quoted him saying that he was going to come out hard to privatize SS in his new administration. This one was a lot craftier, as later it was qualified to 'not touch SS for those at or near retirement'.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The budget is vague? It looks to be spelled out to me.
Well I reread your comment and you did have a paragraph about the dems response to his SS plan.
So I stand by my question. He was vague about his SS plan and just because its a bad idea and people dont have a plan at the moment doesnt mean their criticism isnt warranted.
-
Vague? You think it's vague?
Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's Bamboozlepalooza tour? He clearly spells it out for anyone too lazy to wrap their own head around it:
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Okay, better? I'll keep working on it." - Bush
Don't blame Bush for your not getting it.
-
Still the Idea Man (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A55935-2002Dec14¬Found=true)
Clinton bluntly says Democrats should stop defending the status quo and instead consider changes that would "increase the rate of return" on Social Security.
They could follow the model of the government employees' retirement system (as long-championed by some conservative think tanks) and give people the option, "with 1 or 2 percent of the payroll tax," to invest in one of three mutual funds "that almost always perform as well or better than the market," while at the same time permitting cautious investors the option of buying government bonds, so they could "get the guaranteed Social Security return and 100 percent safety."
-
Originally posted by Nash
Vague? You think it's vague?
Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's Bamboozlepalooza tour? He clearly spells it out for anyone too lazy to wrap their own head around it:
Don't blame Bush for your not getting it.
I will blame whomever I like:)
And you are so right. It is not vague at all. The banks and brokerage houses will make out like bandits.:)
-
You know I read somewhere the 75 year gap in SS could be completed eliminated in one fell swoop by simply eliminating the cap on payroll taxes - currently only the first $90,000 earned are taxed for SS purposes.
But this solution, (simple, cheap and effective as it is) falls squarely on the well to do. So I don't expect much progress on it. But it does give you an idea who the politicians serve.
What about that idea, guys? You want a solution to the SS problem that is quick, easy, and effective, and doesn't ask you to pay anything extra or cut your benefits? (Assuming there aren't many here who earn over $90,000/yr).
I reread Nash's Bush quote several times, and continue to shake my head in wonder at the power of democracy.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I will blame whomever I like:)
And you are so right. It is not vague at all. The banks and brokerage houses will make out like bandits.:)
Yeah. Why would we want to dump more money into the economy. Keep it stashed for gov't expansion.
Were you opposed to this idea when Clinton came up with it, or just now that Bush has adopted it?
-
So, the idea is to make the veteran/military class, two tiered. We can devide them into real and fake soldiers. Do fake soldiers get a guarantee they will never be made a real soldier when they sign up?
BTW Martlet, are you a real soldier or a fake soldier?
On which tier is Bush?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yeah. Why would we want to dump more money into the economy. Keep it stashed for gov't expansion.
Were you opposed to this idea when Clinton came up with it, or just now that Bush has adopted it?
Ummm Bush is president last time I looked. Try not to live in the past:)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
So, the idea is to make the veteran/military class, two tiered. We can devide them into real and fake soldiers. Do fake soldiers get a guarantee they will never be made a real soldier when they sign up?
BTW Martlet, are you a real soldier or a fake soldier?
On which tier is Bush?
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Silat
Ummm Bush is president last time I looked. Try not to live in the past:)
Convenient answer. I expected a dodge, just not one so blatant.
-
Originally posted by oboe
You know I read somewhere the 75 year gap in SS could be completed eliminated in one fell swoop by simply eliminating the cap on payroll taxes - currently only the first $90,000 earned are taxed for SS purposes.
I like this. It leads me on to the idea that we could probably totally eliminate the deficit if the government just taxed everyone at 100%.
OK, maybe that's a little too harsh.
How about this... no matter how much you make, you only get to keep a maximum of $50,000. That's enough for anyone to live on.
The government would get the rest to pay down the deficit and national debt. Because we all know that's what they'd do with it. They sure wouldn't just keep spending and speennddiinng and ssspppeeennndddiiinnnggg forever because they're so responsible with our money.
-
>>I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. <<
Ok, your post wasn't that long ago but to refresh your memory
>>Bush wants veteran's without service related medical conditions to accept more responsibility. I don't see anything wrong with that. The people that spilled their blood and broke their bodies would be unaffected.<<
This is a two tiered class. Those who "spilled their blood and broke their bodies " and I guess those that didn't. Are you really prepared to make that distinction in the military class?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. <<
Ok, your post wasn't that long ago but to refresh your memory
>>Bush wants veteran's without service related medical conditions to accept more responsibility. I don't see anything wrong with that. The people that spilled their blood and broke their bodies would be unaffected.<<
This is a two tiered class. Those who "spilled their blood and broke their bodies " and I guess those that didn't. Are you really prepared to make that distinction in the military class?
Sure I am. Work related injuries are taken care of by the employer. If you worked at GE for 15 years, then broke your ankle 20 years later, you can't go back and make them pay for it.
And that's not even what they are saying. They're saying if you break your ankle 20 years later we WILL pay for it, but you'll have to pay 20 bucks a month for that insurance. However, if you broke your ankle while you were employed with us, we'll continue to take care of you for free.
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Convenient answer. I expected a dodge, just not one so blatant.
The dodge is you bringing up Clinton or the left instead of dealing with the current admins mistakes and or thier victories.
;)
-
Originally posted by Silat
The dodge is you bringing up Clinton or the left instead of dealing with the current admins mistakes and or there victories.
;)
The idea started long before Bush picked it up. The history if an issue isn't a valid topic anymore?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The idea started long before Bush picked it up. The history if an issue isn't a valid topic anymore?
Now that, is a nice dodge.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The pattern is consistent, scream blue bloody murder at anything and everything GWB proposes and counter with nothing. [/B]
I hate to burst your bubble here, but Bush is the one stating that social security is in dire straights. If your position is that the crisis is not so immediate and that we have time to prepare for a more measured fix, then there is no rush to present a counter proposal. Most Dems are saying that privatization does nothing to fix anything. Let's take a more measured approach to the real problem and plan to fix that. That's a pretty smart counter-proposal.
As far as the budget goes, its an insult to anyone with a calculator. But classic Bush, all the way.
-
That's very well put, Scud.