Official "Why we should vote for Bush" thread

[ellsworth81]

ok, we've sorta-but-not-really seen why we should vote for kerry in the companion thread...


so give some reasons why we should vote FOR bush


note: this should be priceless... :biggrin:

[Kuchana]

haha:P i'll post later *rubs her hands* :)

[rice cracker]

So I can laugh at America while safely hidden away in Canada. :tongue: <--At Kucha kekekekeke, jk! :biggrin:

[Arex]

I would not personally vote for him, but I imagine these may be some of the reasons why Bush supporters would vote for him... =)

1) Because he dragged us into the whole mess in Iraq, and it's incumbent upon us to "force" him work another four years to fix it.

2) Because he's Republican, and I'm Republican, so I must vote for him regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies.

3) Because, even though he's demonstrated a lack of competence for the last four years, Kerry is untested as president and should therefore be feared.

4) Because I'm a gung-ho supporter of the military and military-spending, and a senseless war is better than no war at all. Bush has proven himself capable of dragging us into senseless wars.

5) Because Kerry is stiff and uncharismatic, even though those qualities have nothing to do with whether Kerry can be an effective leader, and even though Kerry would be still command more respect as a spokesperson for the United States. Also, I enjoy being spoken to like I'm a 3rd grader, and I have problems understanding words larger than three syllables, so Bush is perfect.

6) Because taxes are bad, and budget deficits are great--why should I care that my children, grand-children and great-grand-children will be burdened with paying off my generation's debts? Even though I personally only saved a few hundred dollars, and social services have been cut dramatically, Bush has a proven track record of cutting taxes and building deficits.

7) Because we enjoy being the laughing stock of the world.

RX

[BigLew]

Because I'm a member of the richest 1% of the country and I saved millions of dollars on the estate tax that Dubya got rid of, seeing as how he owed me anyway from funding and loans I contributed to his failed oil industry ventures.

[Emperor_Mike]

I'd vote Republican for the sake of accountability in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's nothing worse than making a mess and leaving it for someone else to clean up. Of course, if the current occupant of the White House was a Democrat and brought about this foreign policy quagmire and displayed the same degree of appalling incompetence, I'd vote Democrat in the next election as well. Point being, if you cooked the broth you should have to eat it.

[ellsworth81]

shameless bump, especially with the election around the corner. i guess this should be placed in the election forum?

serious answers, pretty please? there's some *real* bush supporters out there... i mean, there has to be, someone is voting him in ;)

i (and others perhaps?) wanna hear what they have to say...

[Kuchana]

But seriously while I don't agree with some of Bush's policies, overall I would prefer him to Kerry; mainly due to the war in Iraq and on terrorism. I cannot envision Kerry in having the ability to handle it as much as Bush has. Furthermore, I think that he'll try to withdraw the troops and leave Iraq in a more worse condition than it is already. I really don't think the last four years have fared that badly. Whose to say that Kerry will do any better? I have this doubt that he won't. But that's my opinion.

And because he's not Kerry!

I want him to fix Iraq, Afghanistan, and fight terrorism and I believe in his ability to accomplish them, although that may look different at the present time.

On a different note, even though he may come across as a moron at times, I still feel his attitude is more sincere than Kerry's.

[ellsworth81]

And because he's not Kerry!

I want him to fix Iraq, Afghanistan, and fight terrorism and I believe in his ability to accomplish them, although that may look different at the present time.

On a different note, even though he may come across as a moron at times, I still feel his attitude is more sincere than Kerry's.

it takes more than "attitude" to be president. i find it sad how this will boil down to like/dislike of one's "character", since it seems both sides are having trouble articulating much of their platform (or so it seems to me)

[SunWuKong]

with the election closing in. let's try to keep this thread serious. i would like to see Republican/pro-Bush views be expressed on YW, too.

[Shogun Empress]

Did anyone read the GQ article that came out in last month's magazine that explained what Bush was doing when he was in the Service? They made the President look like James Bond. I don't usually read GQ so I don't know if they were serious or not. Everything else in it looked normal, except for that article.

[SunWuKong]

Did anyone read the GQ article that came out in last month's magazine that explained what Bush was doing when he was in the Service? They made the President look like James Bond. I don't usually read GQ so I don't know if they were serious or not. Everything else in it looked normal, except for that article.

yeah that was a joke. apparently a lot of people fell for it.

[Shogun Empress]

yeah that was a joke. apparently a lot of people fell for it.
Where did they say it was a joke? GQ is a popular men's magazine. Jokes like that should only be published in the National Enquirer. I didn't see anything in the magazine that mentioned it was a joke.

[mrazntre]

1) Because wars are profitable.

2) Destroying a nation and then rebuilding doesn't seem like a smart idea in the first place, but it's the hope of the administration (and every prior admin) that by setting up US friendly governments in hostile areas while aid to increase the security of the United States, at home and abroad. This is the same exact type of thing that was going on in South America. Any government that acquiesed to US demands was an ally indeed. Only when those govt's fell out of favor or stopped jocking the US admin was it deemed necessary to topple or attempt to topple those govts. Hussein, referred to as the CIA's boy was in favor, then fell out of favor. Time to repo his ass. Things have gone bad as seen with the Shah in Iran, but nothing is fail proof. Spheres of influence are tight cuz you can have your buddies do all your dirty work over there for you.

3) Because Kerry is inconsistent

4) Because Bush is consistent

[ellsworth81]

1) Because wars are profitable.

2) Destroying a nation and then rebuilding doesn't seem like a smart idea in the first place, but it's the hope of the administration (and every prior admin) that by setting up US friendly governments in hostile areas while aid to increase the security of the United States, at home and abroad. This is the same exact type of thing that was going on in South America. Any government that acquiesed to US demands was an ally indeed. Only when those govt's fell out of favor or stopped jocking the US admin was it deemed necessary to topple or attempt to topple those govts. Hussein, referred to as the CIA's boy was in favor, then fell out of favor. Time to repo his ass. Things have gone bad as seen with the Shah in Iran, but nothing is fail proof. Spheres of influence are tight cuz you can have your buddies do all your dirty work over there for you.

3) Because Kerry is inconsistent

4) Because Bush is consistent

Bush is consistent how? Bush and his supporters have made it apparently clear that Kerry is supposedly "inconsistent" (what politician isnt?).

So I guess this is a good chance for Bush-supporters and haters to sort out Bush's "consistency".

[ism]

Bush has flip-flopped more times than Kerry has. Free trade/Steel tarrifs, SS surplus, supporting/not supporting research, creation of dept. of homeland security, 9/11 commission, gay marriage is a state issue/wants Constitutional amendment, and the list goes on. The only thing he's been consistent about is his claim that he is right. In that sense, some Americans are looking for the unapologetic crusader. I can't really blame them. GW is the man of action, and considering Kerry's past behavior requires thinking.

[kitty]

If Kerry is inconsistent, than so is Bush. For every 'flip' that Kerry has made, there is an equal Bush 'flop'. In the debates, they both switched their stances when it came to N. Korea, and yet only Kerry is being blamed as the flip-flopper. Bush was originally against the 9/11 commission, against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and against Dr. Rice's testifying in front of the 9/11 commission. Later, he supported all of these measures.

It's the Republican spin machine hard at work.

[Kuchana]

it takes more than "attitude" to be president. i find it sad how this will boil down to like/dislike of one's "character", since it seems both sides are having trouble articulating much of their platform (or so it seems to me)

Which is why I stated on a personal note, not a significant reason as to why I would vote for Bush. It just makes it better that I like his attitude more than Kerry's. However, what I'm voting for I've already mentioned. Again I've already stated my major reasons. Attitude wasn't one of them.

If Kerry is inconsistent, than so is Bush. For every 'flip' that Kerry has made, there is an equal Bush 'flop'. In the debates, they both switched their stances when it came to N. Korea, and yet only Kerry is being blamed as the flip-flopper. Bush was originally against the 9/11 commission, against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and against Dr. Rice's testifying in front of the 9/11 commission. Later, he supported all of these measures.

It's the Republican spin machine hard at work.

How in the world did Bush switch his position on N.Korea? Kerry is the one that wanted the U.S. to talk directly to N.Korea with no Japan, S. Korea, and Russia, and China involved. Bush pounced on him for that since he's refused to talk to N. Korea directly before and won't.

At least Bush wasn't "I'm for the war, no I'm not, yes I am." Yadda yadda.

[Mr.Lum]

Vote for Bush if you're an idiot or rich!

[ellsworth81]

At least Bush wasn't "I'm for the war, no I'm not, yes I am." Yadda yadda.

i don't understand why that's EVEN a selling point. people change their mind all the time - that's why divorce rates are so ridiculously high.

going by what kerry has said, kerry admits he fucked up. he also admitted he had different impressions of how the war was going to be waged. he realized later on that it's not he had signed up for originally (or so he claims).

it's like when you sign on for a newspaper internship to work a desk job and find out day of that you're gonna be a battlefield journalist.

i think the moral of the iraq story is that when shit turns out unexpectedly, you have to take a step back, collect your shit and re-evaluate the situation, and react - and it doesn't seem like anyone in EITHER camp has done that thus far judging by the more and more unexpected difficulties cropping up. actually, i stand corrected - all the difficulties are pretty much expected. Perhaps we were all a little foolhardy in believing this shit would end quickly....

IMO, consistency shouldn't even be an issue. Politicians are never consistent and never deliver all their promises - that's just the way it is. Give me a fuckin' break.

[deez nuts]

i don't understand why that's EVEN a selling point. people change their mind all the time - that's why divorce rates are so ridiculously high.

going by what kerry has said, kerry admits he fucked up. he also admitted he had different impressions of how the war was going to be waged. he realized later on that it's not he had signed up for originally (or so he claims).

it's like when you sign on for a newspaper internship to work a desk job and find out day of that you're gonna be a battlefield journalist.

i think the moral of the iraq story is that when shit turns out unexpectedly, you have to take a step back, collect your shit and re-evaluate the situation, and react - and it doesn't seem like anyone in EITHER camp has done that thus far judging by the more and more unexpected difficulties cropping up. actually, i stand corrected - all the difficulties are pretty much expected. Perhaps we were all a little foolhardy in believing this shit would end quickly....

IMO, consistency shouldn't even be an issue. Politicians are never consistent and never deliver all their promises - that's just the way it is. Give me a fuckin' break.

so do you know which candidate you're gonna vote for?

as of now, i'm voting for bush. but, i'm still open towards kerry.

[kitty]

How in the world did Bush switch his position on N.Korea? Kerry is the one that wanted the U.S. to talk directly to N.Korea with no Japan, S. Korea, and Russia, and China involved. Bush pounced on him for that since he's refused to talk to N. Korea directly before and won't.


It's inconsistent because Bush believes in going it alone, and yet when it comes to N. Korea, he wants multinational talks.

Oh, and I *would* love to see a reference on when Kerry has refused 'to talk to N. Korea directly before and won't'. Kerry has said that he's for multinational AND bilateral talks when it comes to N. Korea -- that the answer probably lies in having both. I see it as inconsistent with his stance in Iraq, but I don't see it as anymore inconsistent than Bush.


At least Bush wasn't "I'm for the war, no I'm not, yes I am." Yadda yadda.

Kerry was for giving the authority to go to war, but the president misused that authority and lied to the american people. but kerry believes that now that the troops are in, we need to finish what we started. he voted for the $87 billion dollars when it was a different bill, when it was being paid for by the rich, rather than the already heavily taxed middle-class. when the bill got changed so that it taxes the middle-class to raise that $87 billion, kerry felt it unfair that we the middle-class pay the entire burden of the war, so he voted against the bill -- NOT against the troops.

incidentally, don't let the bush camp pull the wool over your eyes -- the $87 billion isn't apparently that important, no matter how much they harp about kerry's vote. they haven't even really used it yet.

[ellsworth81]

so do you know which candidate you're gonna vote for?

as of now, i'm voting for bush. but, i'm still open towards kerry.

opposite of you in fact. on the surface, a vote for kerry but still open to bush.

but in reality, i see no real active reason to vote for either party. i still question whether or not the Democrats are a good vote - perhaps that requires more research.

so i may very well vote for myself or something come time.

[mrazntre]

It's inconsistent because Bush believes in going it alone, and yet when it comes to N. Korea, he wants multinational talks.

Oh, and I *would* love to see a reference on when Kerry has refused 'to talk to N. Korea directly before and won't'. Kerry has said that he's for multinational AND bilateral talks when it comes to N. Korea -- that the answer probably lies in having both. I see it as inconsistent with his stance in Iraq, but I don't see it as anymore inconsistent than Bush.



Kerry was for giving the authority to go to war, but the president misused that authority and lied to the american people. but kerry believes that now that the troops are in, we need to finish what we started. he voted for the $87 billion dollars when it was a different bill, when it was being paid for by the rich, rather than the already heavily taxed middle-class. when the bill got changed so that it taxes the middle-class to raise that $87 billion, kerry felt it unfair that we the middle-class pay the entire burden of the war, so he voted against the bill -- NOT against the troops.

incidentally, don't let the bush camp pull the wool over your eyes -- the $87 billion isn't apparently that important, no matter how much they harp about kerry's vote. they haven't even really used it yet.

there's a history of cooperation between nations in that area for talks so Bush isn't stupid enough to deal on his own. N.Korea, as a rogue nation, probably would not come to the table without other nations at the table who they believe to be objective about the situation. Japan is always going to be in the talks, more specifically because of the Taepaedong II missile that sailed over their heads about 5 years ago. S. Korea is there for obvious reasons. China, a historical ally of N.Korea has got to be there to create a sense of security for the N.Koreans. Russia's in on it because of historical reasons also.

With Iraq, you have the major allies - Israel (yeah right), Saudi Arabia (times have changed and it's not as great an ally as back in Desert Storm), Kuwait (they've been waiting for this moment). They're not going to sit down and talk with Iraq.

There can't just be one single policy when dealing with nations in different areas of the world, multi-lateral or bilateral, it all depends on the situation at hand.

[Shogun Empress]

And because he's not Kerry!

I want him to fix Iraq, Afghanistan, and fight terrorism and I believe in his ability to accomplish them, although that may look different at the present time.

On a different note, even though he may come across as a moron at times, I still feel his attitude is more sincere than Kerry's.History has proven that you can't fix the Middle East.

I agree with you about his attitude. A dumb nice guy is easier to swallow than a smart asshole.

[kitty]

There can't just be one single policy when dealing with nations in different areas of the world, multi-lateral or bilateral, it all depends on the situation at hand.

That's fine... however, if that holds true for Bush, it should hold true for Kerry. If you argue that Kerry is being inconsistent, than you necessarily have to throw Bush into the same boat, since they both switched their stances on N. Korea.

[deez nuts]

That's fine... however, if that holds true for Bush, it should hold true for Kerry. If you argue that Kerry is being inconsistent, than you necessarily have to throw Bush into the same boat, since they both switched their stances on N. Korea.

bush's inconsistency is overshadowed by his constant bumbliness (is bumbling-ness even a word?) and bush-ism's.

i think people are more forgiving of bush's inconsistencies because kerry is supposedly the more intelligent more well spoken candidate.

i guess that's the price you have to pay for being the smarter the more coherent candidate.

[Mr.Lum]

On a different note, even though he may come across as a moron at times, I still feel his attitude is more sincere than Kerry's.

Sinerely evil. The man has no good intentions at all. He may seem like a nice guy, but he's up to no good. He's like Satan is supposed to be.

[kimpossible]

Sinerely evil. The man has no good intentions at all. He may seem like a nice guy, but he's up to no good. He's like Satan is supposed to be.

I would disagree. I don't think he has any evil intentions. Not saying he hasn't committed some horrible, unthinking acts but I do believe that he believes he's acting in the best interest of the USA.

I give him credit on how he handled 9/11. Not his policies after 9/11 but I'd say that's the ultimate test. We were attacked and his administration withstood the attack. Unfortunately, I think the same administration, IMO, is leaving us more vulnerable now than protecting us long term on all fronts.

[Arex]

^--- I really don't see what was so special about how the administration handled the 9/11 attacks. Yeah, he showed strength, called for unity and didn't cower or wet himself when the American public was looking for answers and leadership. But that's what I would expect of any president. I don't see that Bush Sr., Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have acted any differently. The swift response in Afghanistan was also an obvious choice to make which I'm sure any president would have made under those circumstances.

But then you have Iraq. I don't know that anyone besides Bush and his administration would have been so quick to divert attention from the real ball to plunge the U.S. into that mess. To the extent that the Iraq war is considered a response to 9/11 and terrorism, I'd say Bush has handled it horribly.

[Mr.Lum]

I would disagree. I don't think he has any evil intentions. Not saying he hasn't committed some horrible, unthinking acts but I do believe that he believes he's acting in the best interest of the USA.

I don't think anyone is that stupid.

[mrazntre]

That's fine... however, if that holds true for Bush, it should hold true for Kerry. If you argue that Kerry is being inconsistent, than you necessarily have to throw Bush into the same boat, since they both switched their stances on N. Korea.

I don't care what boat you throw them in.

[kimpossible]

^--- I really don't see what was so special about how the administration handled the 9/11 attacks.

ok, but i do -> they're the ones that had to deal with it. it doesn't make me dislike Bush any less but it doesn't prevent me from appreciating that my President and his administration didn't crumble. or giuliani or pitaki (i keep wanting to say cuomo)

still not voting for Bush though. the enormity of fuck-ups since 9/11 far outweigh the credit he had with me during 9/11.

[Arex]

^ Fair enough. I appreciate that the administration (though mostly Giuliani) showed a strong face when America really needed it, too.

I just don't understand why some people (not you) give that P.R. performance greater weight in their voting than everything that's happened since then. It's as if those people had this positive image of Bush permanently etched into their brains immediately after 9/11, and since that time, he is incapable of doing anything wrong in their eyes. Damnit people, open your eyes!!

But so as to stay marginally on topic, more reasons to vote for Bush:

- There's nothing worse than an idle military, and military technology going unused. Bush will guarantee work for our armed forces for as long as it takes to clean up any more of Bush's foreign policy "blunders."

- Being suspicious and fearful is a normal and healthy way to live life. Bush will remind us constantly of that fact. Moreover, he will do everything within his power to ensure that our fear is not unfounded by pissing off as many people as possible, thereby inviting more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

RX

[Emperor_Mike]

Your decision to vote for a particular candidate in the coming election should be based on his existing or proposed national and foreign policies and not your personal opinions about the individual in question. Fortunately, some people are in tune with this line of thinking. Unfortunately, far too many of us are not. Casting a ballot based solely on personal attitudes of enmity or adoration is just about the worst disservice one can do to his or her country. It is a gross abuse of the democratic process that transforms the right to make an informed decision for the fate of the nation into a popularity contest straight out of secondary school. To be sure, the political process *is* a struggle for social prominence in some manner, but the key difference lies in the acceptance of a PLATFORM rather than a PERSON as the subject of approval.

Voting for John Kerry because you think Bush is stupid and inept is wrong. Voting for George W. Bush because you are of the opinion that Kerry is too smart or too rich is equally bad. Look at the policies, try to determine which you think is the most realistic course for the nation to adopt, and cast your ballot for the candidate who endorses it. Political parties and ideologies change and so must the party supporters. Blind adherence to a particular party is a fool's errand. Sooner or later changes will occur and the practise of unquestioning support for a single political organisation based on what you *perceive* to be their agenda without actually examining their stated election policies will result in the nation digging itself into a grave.

It is a maddening issue, to be sure. People born into a democratic state have no appreciation for the prerogative they've been given. Masses of individuals around the world and throughout history gave their lives for the right to self-determination; something that many of us take for granted. To watch the noble process and institution of elected government degenerate into wholly social matter is an extremely disconcerting and utterly dejecting experience. It is even more unsettling that nothing can be done about it because people are influenced far too easily. Even the "intelligent" ones can be swayed as a reed in the breeze with carefully chosen words that play on their sentiments. Politics and more importantly, the act of voting, must be bereft of emotional ties because having such hinderances will more often than not result in faulty reasoning and ill-conceived decision making. This is the ideal stance in any case, but realistically speaking, there is absolutely no hope in there being a mass espousal of such a way of thinking.

Most unfortunate for us all.

[Yeahman]

OK back to the original topic. Why vote for Bush?
Note: The following views are not necessarily my own.

1. Pro-life.
2. EVERYONE got a tax cut
3. No Child Left Behind
4. Dividend and capital gains tax cuts encouraged investment
5. Pulled out of Kyoto Treaty
6. Senior citizen prescription drug benefit
7. Ousted Saddam
8. Severely damaged the Al Qaeda network
9. Caused Libya to give up its WMDs
10. He's resolute
11. He increased military spending
12. He wants to have medical malpractice caps
13. He wants to reform the tax code
14. He was pretty good during the aftermath of 9/11

[Mr.Lum]

Caused Libya to give up its WMDs


I would disagree, because this is is incorrect. It has long been known and said that Libya did it not because it feared attack or because of Bush, but because it was simply unrealistic because it would bring no benefit whatso ever to Libya and was too costly. It would have happened anyway also because talks had begun witht he US before Bush came in.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/libya.htm
The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration's first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should even be given to the second Clinton administration. Tired of international isolation and economic sanctions, the Libyans decided in the late 1990's to seek normalized relations with the United States, and held secret discussions with Clinton administration officials to convey that message. The Clinton White House made clear that no movement toward better relations was possible until Libya met its responsibilities stemming from the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.



http://www.mideasti.org/articles/doc192.html

The negotiations began in May 1999, with Musa Kusa, Colonel Qadhafi’s head of intelligence services, leading the Libyan delegation. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt strongly backed the process and at times even provided logistical support. The US put forth two initial conditions which Colonel Qadhafi fulfilled immediately: first, that Libya halt all efforts in the UN to have the sanctions lifted; and second, that the bilateral dialogue be kept secret.

[mrazntre]

^ Fair enough. I appreciate that the administration (though mostly Giuliani) showed a strong face when America really needed it, too.

I just don't understand why some people (not you) give that P.R. performance greater weight in their voting than everything that's happened since then. It's as if those people had this positive image of Bush permanently etched into their brains immediately after 9/11, and since that time, he is incapable of doing anything wrong in their eyes. Damnit people, open your eyes!!

But so as to stay marginally on topic, more reasons to vote for Bush:

- There's nothing worse than an idle military, and military technology going unused. Bush will guarantee work for our armed forces for as long as it takes to clean up any more of Bush's foreign policy "blunders."

- Being suspicious and fearful is a normal and healthy way to live life. Bush will remind us constantly of that fact. Moreover, he will do everything within his power to ensure that our fear is not unfounded by pissing off as many people as possible, thereby inviting more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

RX

1) military technology can be adapted for commercial uses
2) the terrorists were going to attack sooner or later, regardless of whatever Bush did/does/or is going to do.

[Shogun Empress]

Another reason to vote for Bush is because Kerry doesn't have any reliable allies in the international community, unlike Bush, who has allies the U.S. can depend on.

[kitty]

Kerry is also not president. you can't say he has or doesn't have reliable allies when he wasn't in any position to create reliable allies in the first place. As a senator, he doesn't have the same clout as a president, so to try to compare the number of international allies they have is unrealistic.

I say compare them when Kerry is given the opportunity to make allies as president.

[Shuriken]

Most unfortunate for us all.

Well put, Mike.

[ellsworth81]

Another reason to vote for Bush is because Kerry doesn't have any reliable allies in the international community, unlike Bush, who has allies the U.S. can depend on.

such as........?

[Yeahman]

Kerry is also not president. you can't say he has or doesn't have reliable allies when he wasn't in any position to create reliable allies in the first place. As a senator, he doesn't have the same clout as a president, so to try to compare the number of international allies they have is unrealistic.

I say compare them when Kerry is given the opportunity to make allies as president.
So did you avoid comparing the foreign policy experiences of Bush and Gore in 2000?

[Mr.Lum]

such as........?


The UK and......Israel and.............................the UK....................Israel................

[Yeahman]

You forgot Poland! Don't forget Poland!

[hooligan]

You forgot Poland! Don't forget Poland!

POLAND!

[Mr.Lum]

You forgot Poland! Don't forget Poland!

Poland is not resolute.

[Shogun Empress]

LOL@the Florida election ballot!

http://www.wearabledissent.com/101/floridaballot.html

:smile:

[SunWuKong]

i would like to ask all you Kerry supporters:
why do you hate America so much? and why do you love Osama bin Laden?


(just kidding :tongue:)

[Shogun Empress]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=2&u=/ap/20041015/ap_on_el_pr/military_poll

Poll: GIs, Families Trust Bush Over Kerry

1 hour, 16 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - When asked whom they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush (news - web sites) over Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.



Latest Headlines:
· Bush's New England Campaign Chief Resigns
AP - 3 minutes ago

· Kerry Says Bush Plan Could Lead to Draft
AP - 14 minutes ago

· Kerry Suggest Bush Could Revive Draft
AP - 15 minutes ago


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Election Coverage





Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday.


Among all Americans, Bush has a narrower advantage on trust to be commander in chief, 50-41.


The military sample was far more likely to be Republican than Democratic, which could help explain the more favorable view of the president. Four in 10, 43 percent, of the military sample said they were Republicans, while 19 percent said Democrats and 27 percent independents.


Those in the military and their families have a more favorable view of Bush than Americans generally, and they take a more optimistic view about Iraq (news - web sites), the economy and the nation's direction.


A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.


The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.


The Annenberg poll, which does not report head-to-head preferences, did not ask the military respondents whom they support for president. The report cited a 1948 law that prohibits polling members of the military about their voting intent.


The poll of 655 in the active military and their families was taken Sept. 22-Oct. 5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Their answers were compared to those of 2,436 adults surveyed between Sept. 7-Oct. 3 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.


___


On the Net:


National Annenberg Election Survey: http://www.naes04.org

[Arex]

^ This is one phenomenon I just don't understand. I guess there are a lot of people who feel the need to blindly support Bush simply to validate the presence of their loved ones in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that they never needed to be there in the first place and wouldn't have been if Bush was a responsible leader.=P I wonder how many of the people surveyed had heard of the Duelfer report.

RX

[thaite]

What's really odd is that Bush supporters would put their trust and the lives of soldiers in the hands of Commander in Chief who had never served under fire or commanded men in combat.

I would think that the candidate better suited is the one who understands by having been in combat and therefore less likely to be reckless with soldier's lives.

[kimpossible]

I don't think it's a Bush only phenomenon. Many military people vote conservative and probably moreso during a time of active conflict. Hard for me to tell. I was only a military brat and never actually served. Though I would hedge a bet Kerry being an unknown during an unstable time largely factors into it. Some have also served under W's dad, or maybe their parents did so I get the sense that they rely on the administration supporting junior if not the man himself.

[Kuchana]

^ This is one phenomenon I just don't understand. I guess there are a lot of people who feel the need to blindly support Bush simply to validate the presence of their loved ones in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that they never needed to be there in the first place and wouldn't have been if Bush was a responsible leader.=P I wonder how many of the people surveyed had heard of the Duelfer report.

RX

I hardly think it's due to blindly supporting Bush. kimpossible brought up some other possible reasons as well. Plus your remark about questioning if military members had heard of the Duelfer report was not amusing. It reminds me of a similar attitude from Congressman Pete Stark who openly questioned the intelligence of one of his constituents (who was a military member) just because of the fact he didn't agree with him on the war. He even went so far as to insult him because the constituent wrote a well-written letter to him detailing his displeasure and Congressman Stark didn't think a "military" member was capable of intelligence. :rolleyes:

[Arex]

^ Call it what you want, but I'll call it blind devotion if they truly believe the same president that was stupid/careless/reckless enough to get us into this horribly miscalculated war really has enough sense to get us out.

Bottom line: if you see this war as a mistake, I personally don't see how you can have any confidence in Bush's ability to lead our troops (this is separate from his stance on gay marriage, abortion, his tax policies, etc.). The fact that so many people continue to view Bush as an effective commander in chief suggests to me that there are a good number of people out there who do not see the war as a mistake. But based on the Duelfer report, I think it's pretty damn clear that, based on the original justifications for the war (WMDs), the war was a horrible mistake and completely unjustified. Thus, my question: how many of the poll respondents had heard of the Duelfer report and actually know that there were no WMDs.

The question wasn't meant to be amusing and I think it's perfectly valid, particularly given that a large number of Americans seem to be so poorly informed (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Report08_20_04.pdf) (pdf) about the existence of WMDs in Iraq and the justifications for the war. According to the linked PIPA/Knowledge Networks study, as of August 2004 (prior to the Duelfer report), an astonishing 50% of people surveyed continue to believe Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda prior to the invasion and 54% believe Iraq had WMDs, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee's and 9/11 Commission's reports to the contrary. Since I'm no politician, I'll say it outright: to those of you who continue to think the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam had WMDs or was aiding al Qaeda, you people are morons and need to wake the fuck up!

RX

[kitty]

I don't think it's a Bush only phenomenon. Many military people vote conservative and probably moreso during a time of active conflict. Hard for me to tell. I was only a military brat and never actually served. Though I would hedge a bet Kerry being an unknown during an unstable time largely factors into it. Some have also served under W's dad, or maybe their parents did so I get the sense that they rely on the administration supporting junior if not the man himself.

also another thought: it's illegal for a man in uniform to criticize the commander-in-chief. illegal. like, let's toss the muthafucka under the jail, illegal.

that might have something to do with those numbers.

[Shogun Empress]

In Florida, the President has signed some kind of order in where getting in the overseas ballots from the military ballots have become top priority over the others. I don't know if its nation-wide or not but I know its happening here. The main reason the President has a big following with the military is because almost everyone in his cabinet has been visiting the troops to push his propaganda. It's free advertising. They'll order all the troops they can make available and make them listen to what they have to say. There isn't a yes or no option. You can't make a soldier listen to Kerry, but you can make them listen to the Commander-In-Chief. It's his troops so he tells them what he wants them to hear. A lot of the commanders support the President and Donald Rumsfield. A lot of commanders have a lot of respect for Colin Powell. These guys go out and visit the troops. What a lot of people don't realize is that, George W. Bush Presidential campaign started before Kerry was even running for President. Bush has done such a good job of taking advantage of his position to further his political aims, that Kerry will never get the majority vote from the military. The President's strategy from the very beginning was to appeal to the military. From the looks of things, he's been very successful at it. What's so hard to understand about it?

[kitty]

very astute observation, but are you sure there's enough people in the military to make it worth his time?

[Shogun Empress]

very astute observation, but are you sure there's enough people in the military to make it worth his time?
I don't care. I'm not voting because it doesn't matter anyway. I just try to figure out why people do what they do sometimes.

[Fireblade]

Vote Bush so more people will die. Then when everyone bitches about how it is, remember... you voted Bush.

[Shogun Empress]

I saw Farenheit 9/11 the other day. I'm still voting for Bush.

[yoMAMA]

Personally I think bush is a likable guy [or appears to], but his policy [actually i mean master cheney's] is just so bad that's there no way I will vote for him.

[kitty]

I don't care. I'm not voting because it doesn't matter anyway.
I saw Farenheit 9/11 the other day. I'm still voting for Bush.

... wait... so which is it? voting or not?

anyways, i don't think it matters because, i think bush is gonna win. and then, when everyone dies, and the environment implodes, and social security evaporates, then we can blame all those silly people who thought bush would keep us safe.

[Yeahman]

anyways, i don't think it matters because, i think bush is gonna win. and then, when everyone dies, and the environment implodes, and social security evaporates, then we can blame all those silly people who thought bush would keep us safe.
You talk as if social security evaporating is a bad thing. The biggest chunk of government spending will disappear. That sounds like a good thing to me.
And we can already blame those people who thought Bush would keep us safe. Well sort of. They could always counter with "We haven't had another 9/11 yet."

[ellsworth81]

You talk as if social security evaporating is a bad thing. The biggest chunk of government spending will disappear. That sounds like a good thing to me.
And we can already blame those people who thought Bush would keep us safe. Well sort of. They could always counter with "We haven't had another 9/11 yet."

i agree. end social security. right now.

[kitty]

well, here's my two cents.

i have paid into social security. i am paying to benefit another generation's retirement goodness. i hardly think it fair that 'social security evaporates' and i am left with nothing to put towards MY retirement, and no compensation for having helped out the people before me. if a generation has to be screwed to end social security, i would rather that my generation not be it.

so do i think social security is on the whole a good thing? i'm not sure. would i support it just evaporating? absolutely not, because then, i'm the person getting screwed.

[Yeahman]

^ true but take one for the children! If you don't get your SS that means that your children won't have to pay for it. Just have at least 2 children and your family won't be losing anything.
Anyway, I think SS should be phased out over time. If you want we can have mandatory retirement accounts managed by the states. Exempt from state and federal tax, minimum contributions set by the state, no maximum, can invest in variety of state-picked funds, not withdrawable until age 65 except when physically unable to work (handicapped, terminally ill...), maximum annual withdrawal limit.

[ellsworth81]

it's called "learn-how-to-save-some-fuckin-money-instead-of-buying-loads-of-useless-shit" educational program. if we take the educational approach in the war on drugs, why not on the war on shitty spending habits?

i didn't think you' be in favor of some kind of state-mandated/regulated savings program, yelloman? if you have no discipline, there's some vehicles out there that will either prevent you outright or penalize you heavily for touching your invested money. the govt's involvement at this level seems ridiculous.

it's not even about taking one for the team. you haven't exactly put in that much, have you? many of us have only worked a couple of years at the most, so the sooner we get rid of it, the less WE have to contribute.

my parents covered their asses - if they did it, i don't see how anyone else can't.

[Shogun Empress]

... wait... so which is it? voting or not?

anyways, i don't think it matters because, i think bush is gonna win. and then, when everyone dies, and the environment implodes, and social security evaporates, then we can blame all those silly people who thought bush would keep us safe.I don't know. You just jinxed Bush. Now Kerry is going to win.

[hooligan]

I don't know. You just jinxed Bush. Now Kerry is going to win.
the interesting thing is that some progressive minds want bush to win. they believe that he'll single handedly rape south america, screw up the middle east more than he has now, and piss of the EU even more. that way, change, as bad as it'll get will happen under these conditions. i mean, the revolution will happen under these conditions.

[Arex]

I don't know. You just jinxed Bush. Now Kerry is going to win.If only that's all it took to bring Bush's campaign down in flames.

Re: Social security, the problem is that today's recipients are relying on our present day contributions. How exactly do we transition from the present-day system to one where we're paying into our own personal retirement accounts without disrupting these recipients' benefits? I agree the system could use some tweaking, but I just don't trust this president to figure out exactly how to do it in a fiscally responsible way.

my parents covered their asses - if they did it, i don't see how anyone else can't.Not everyone's blessed with a job that pays well enough to be able to pay for food, clothes, shelter and education while still being able to put aside enough to live on once you've outlived your useful working life.

RX

[Fireblade]

the interesting thing is that some progressive minds want bush to win. they believe that he'll single handedly rape south america, screw up the middle east more than he has now, and piss of the EU even more. that way, change, as bad as it'll get will happen under these conditions. i mean, the revolution will happen under these conditions.

If Bush gets Reelected, I swear... there will be something similar to the political activisim on college campuses all around.

And I'll be alongside for the mix. :biggrin:

[hooligan]

If Bush gets Reelected, I swear... there will be something similar to the political activisim on college campuses all around.

And I'll be alongside for the mix. :biggrin:
why dont' you start now? find a progressive, organizing apia org and join up!

[deez nuts]

hoozah.

such pro-kerry fervor.

the passion. the angst. it's like the ALCS all over again.

[Mr.Lum]

it's called "learn-how-to-save-some-fuckin-money-instead-of-buying-loads-of-useless-shit" educational program. if we take the educational approach in the war on drugs, why not on the war on shitty spending habits?

Because the War on Drugs is a miserable failure.

the interesting thing is that some progressive minds want bush to win. they believe that he'll single handedly rape south america, screw up the middle east more than he has now, and piss of the EU even more. that way, change, as bad as it'll get will happen under these conditions. i mean, the revolution will happen under these conditions.

They sound like Louiza Hanoune and her support for the Islamists in the Algerian civil war because they would bring society to a state of complete suffering and dispair, which would set the stage for a new Algeria; ie destroy everything and start over. Funny thing is, these were the same dudes who wanted her head because she was a Trotskyist, non-viel-wearing, socially liberal, and worst of Arab female and probably would have killed her like everybody else. She also got like 4% of the poular vote....those kinds of people scare the hell out of me.

[Yeahman]

it's called "learn-how-to-save-some-fuckin-money-instead-of-buying-loads-of-useless-shit" educational program. if we take the educational approach in the war on drugs, why not on the war on shitty spending habits?

i didn't think you' be in favor of some kind of state-mandated/regulated savings program, yelloman? if you have no discipline, there's some vehicles out there that will either prevent you outright or penalize you heavily for touching your invested money. the govt's involvement at this level seems ridiculous.

it's not even about taking one for the team. you haven't exactly put in that much, have you? many of us have only worked a couple of years at the most, so the sooner we get rid of it, the less WE have to contribute.

my parents covered their asses - if they did it, i don't see how anyone else can't.
As stated by others, we pay for our parents. If we stop paying, our parents stop receiving.

I would love to see some responsible retirement planning and keep the government out. But we have idiots out there. So forget the idiots? I wouldn't mind except that that would mean that we have to dole out more welfare. And I support welfare. I don't want to see Americans starving.

I don't think mandatory retirement accounts is a bad thing. It's something EVERYONE SHOULD be doing anyway. The only reason why one wouldn't is if they are ignorant.

[kitty]

re: social security.

actually, it's not me paying for my parents. social security is its own investment program. you pay in, with the expectation that you will get paid when the time comes for you. instead of individual retirement accounts, it's a collctive retirement account. i don't disagree that the system could use tweaking, but are you honestly thinking that evaporation of the system would be a good idea?

it was originally intended to help retirees, not be their sole source of income, but for many retirees, it is their sole source. for many soon to retire, it will be. and for all of us paying into the system, mandatorily, we're paying in with the agreement that we will be fairly compensated with a return. if the SS system were to disappear, there would be no way for those of us who have been paying in to be compensated.

this isn't about whether or not you save your own money for retirement. nothing stops you from doing that. this is about the gov't taking your money, ellsworth, and saying 'you'll get it back in a few years', and then swindling you by disassembling the system before you hit 65. whether you NEED it is irrelevant, with any rapid phasing out of SS, one generation will get screwed, and right now, everyone thinks it's going to be yours and mine.

Besides, SS isn't necessarily a wholly bad thing. I think the principle of it is a good idea -- and rather than yell0's idea of individual accounts managed by the gov't, I think trying to equalize SS across the board, to give everyone a little something to live off of is a good idea. If you don't like it -- you can put a little more of your paycheque away and still live better than the average retiree when the time comes. I don't think the gov't should have the kind of power to regulate your ENTIRE retirement account, but they should ensure that everyone has enough for basic necessities when they are forced to retire.

Incidentally, there are plenty of people out there who live paycheque to paycheque. There's a whole class of people who are fully employed, honest hard-working people with legal jobs, who are still below the poverty line, because minimum wage is so low and costs of everything is skyrocketing. Their lack of a hefty savings account has nothing to do with 'paying for shit they don't need' or 'ignorance' and everything to do with trying to pay for stuff like food and shelter. Way to be blind elitists, people.

[kimpossible]

re: social security.

actually, it's not me paying for my parents. social security is its own investment program. you pay in, with the expectation that you will get paid when the time comes for you. instead of individual retirement accounts, it's a collctive retirement account. i don't disagree that the system could use tweaking, but are you honestly thinking that evaporation of the system would be a good idea?
right now, everyone thinks it's going to be yours and mine.


I believe Social Security is only a transfer payment. There is no investment or individual account accrual, which why it is affected by the number of younger, working people versus older and retired at any one time.

****transfer payment: A payment made without any corresponding production or expectations of production. Unless otherwise noted (such as business transfer payments), the term transfer payments generally refers to payments by the government sector to the household sector. The three most important transfer payments in our economy are for Social Security, unemployment compensation, and welfare. The intent of these transfers payments is to redistribute income, and thus the goods and services that can be had with the income. Transfer payments surface as income received but not earned (IRBNE) added to national income to derived personal income.

[kitty]

yeah, i didn't mean 'investment' like the money will get bigger. i mean investment like, you put the money in, it's gone, but you expect a return.

i prolly shoulda used a different word.

[kimpossible]

Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying but I thought you were saying that you 'bank' money as you work by paying into Social Security and get that money back later on like a savings account. Maybe you're talking about the ideal of the system and I'm talking about the mechanics.

I wasn't trying to nitpick on a term though. I'm agreeing with the idea that transfer payment system to redistribute wealth for retirees from current workers is flawed and that essentially you are paying for the previous generation's retirement. You have to hope that there will be enough of a tax base in future generations to pay for your Social Security in your retirement.

There was one South American country that went to government managed individual investment accounts. I forgot which one, I want to say Chile, but I think net worth of the individual by retirement time multiplied by about 4 times. It worked for them at any rate.

[ellsworth81]

actually, it's not me paying for my parents. social security is its own investment program. you pay in, with the expectation that you will get paid when the time comes for you. instead of individual retirement accounts, it's a collctive retirement account. i don't disagree that the system could use tweaking, but are you honestly thinking that evaporation of the system would be a good idea?


from what i've learned, there is no "investment" persay - you don't earn any kind of extra return. if anything (building off of kimpossible's info), you lose money due to the fact that money now is more valuable than money in the future.


it was originally intended to help retirees, not be their sole source of income, but for many retirees, it is their sole source. for many soon to retire, it will be. and for all of us paying into the system, mandatorily, we're paying in with the agreement that we will be fairly compensated with a return. if the SS system were to disappear, there would be no way for those of us who have been paying in to be compensated.


the intention of SS *was* good, and now that we're no longer in a Great Depression-like era, i think it has more than served its purpose. I'd like to think we are reasonably sophisticated enough to not have to depend upon the govt for something like this. i feel bad for the ppl who thought they could rely on that nominal amt the govt was stashing away for themselves. maybe they didn't realize how much money they needed, and i would partially fault the govt for at least not making them aware of adequate retirement plans.


and to reiterate, I haven't had to really contribute to SS until the last year or two, so my contribution is minimal. I would assume the same goes for you. I'm willing to sacrifice whatever I plunked in to phase out/kill the system to spare future generations and myself the burden. why do you think our generation is going to screwed ... i'm just not following.


this isn't about whether or not you save your own money for retirement. nothing stops you from doing that. this is about the gov't taking your money, ellsworth, and saying 'you'll get it back in a few years', and then swindling you by disassembling the system before you hit 65. whether you NEED it is irrelevant, with any rapid phasing out of SS, one generation will get screwed, and right now, everyone thinks it's going to be yours and mine.


actually, SS does hinder your savings plans. if you make peanuts right now (like many people do in this country), any dollar garnished from your paycheck makes a huge difference. those couple of dollars that the government takes from you is something extra that you could've used for your own saving/investing purposes. and i don't think SS is "swindling" - it's just unnecessary and in my opinion very inefficient.


Besides, SS isn't necessarily a wholly bad thing. I think the principle of it is a good idea -- and rather than yell0's idea of individual accounts managed by the gov't, I think trying to equalize SS across the board, to give everyone a little something to live off of is a good idea. If you don't like it -- you can put a little more of your paycheque away and still live better than the average retiree when the time comes. I don't think the gov't should have the kind of power to regulate your ENTIRE retirement account, but they should ensure that everyone has enough for basic necessities when they are forced to retire.


i'm skeptical on any govt handling of retirement funds. i just dont see the need when ppl can just dump some cash in a CD or something and earn at least a little interest. and the govt really has no idea of knowing what is "enough" for retirement. everyone has different standards of living, and it should be up to people to decide and execute a retirement planning. once again, i advocate an educational approach.



Incidentally, there are plenty of people out there who live paycheque to paycheque. There's a whole class of people who are fully employed, honest hard-working people with legal jobs, who are still below the poverty line, because minimum wage is so low and costs of everything is skyrocketing. Their lack of a hefty savings account has nothing to do with 'paying for shit they don't need' or 'ignorance' and everything to do with trying to pay for stuff like food and shelter. Way to be blind elitists, people.

i'm not sure who you're directing that elitist comment at, but if it's at me, then i suppose guilty as charged. that's because this country is inherently elitist - it's built upon capitalism. you have to fight to survive and that's the way it is.

i'm making near minimum wage (compared to a lot more in the past), and i have had to tighten the belt as much as possible - which means living at home, never buying anything, etc. Life is expensive, but i know there are many people (some of my friends included) living paycheck to paycheck who could have healthier finances if they exercised some more responsibility in their purchases (did they really need that leather jacket?). If you strip your expenses to the bare minimums - i mean absolute bare minimums - you could save some cash, but you sacrifice some comfort. There are always ways to cut corners and oftentimes, there is a way out. But are any of us willing to do it? Course not - it's difficult since we're so used to the finer things in life, but you do what you have to do. But that doesn't mean depend on the govt to help you out - you have to depend upon yourself.

The level of wages in this country is a complex issue that is beyond my ability to fathom. Simply increasing a minimum wage won't be the solution. Having said that, the minimum wage is not "low". It's our standard of living that is too high. People are coming in from abroad able to accept wages lower than we can compete with. And there's nothing you can do to stop that. And it doesn't help that corporations are increasingly keeping their eye on cutting/minimizing costs wherever possible.

Reconciling the difference between skyrocketing costs and dwindling incomes is beyond the scope and capability of the social security program. And controlling either variable is no easy feat either, and you'll get no answers with good, lasting results from me.

[Shuriken]

For me, the need to elect Kerry is so self-evident that it's common sense. I've tried to find some thoughtful endorsements of Bush on the Web (those you can read without registering) but couldn't find any. The small snippets that I did manage to find all make some vague reference to "leadership" without exactly saying how his particular way of rushing to war with a country that did not immediately threaten us is an example of this.

Any postings of thoughtful Bush endorsements on this thread will be appreciated.

[ChinaLama]

I sort of sympathize with Ellsworth's view; I think as a society, we might want to provide some sort of welfare to the poor, but I'm not really sure if it's necessary for us to have Social Security for all of us (and it's not a couple of dollars, either; payroll tax is quite substantial :-p). It might be better or more efficient if instead of paying the payroll tax, we just invest in our retirement.

Also, kitty, I don't agree that the reason for keeping SS is so we don't get screwed as opposed to earlier generations. Like some have said, SS isn't exactly an investment. Also I think the way you're saying it, it's almost a vicious cycle sort of argument. An "i'm already damned so may as well keep damning myself and damning future generations."

[Shuriken]

HE'S SO BAD, HE MIGHT BE PERFECT

Under an odd logic, Bush deserves another term. Shouldn't he suffer for his blunders?

by Jonathan Chait

October 8, 2004

An editor at the paper suggested that I use this week's column to try to make the most honest and persuasive case I could for President Bush's reelection. At first I was skeptical. To say that I consider Bush a "bad" president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word "bad." I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my "bad" category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as "good." There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky.

But then I thought, what the heck. Why not try it for the sake of intellectual experimentation? After all, lawyers often defend some pretty repugnant clients, right? In keeping with that, I won't attempt to deny that my client has done some awful things. What I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection.

Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse. First of all, domestically, GOP moderates and deficit hawks have finally begun to wake up and realize that they have to rein in Bush's reckless fiscal policies. At the same time, if John F. Kerry is elected and tries to raise taxes or rein in spending, he'll probably suffer substantial political damage, as Bill Clinton did in 1994. But, unlike Clinton, he'll not enjoy Democratic majorities in both Houses, which means he stands a good chance of failing. That would be the worst of all worlds: Democrats would suffer the political costs of demanding sacrifice from the public, without the corresponding benefit of making the country better.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has estimated that there's a 75% chance of a major financial crisis within the next five years if we don't reduce our budget deficit. That may be too high, but assume he's right. Whoever holds office would quickly become extremely unpopular, whether he had tried to deal with the deficit or not. If the choice is Bush doing nothing versus Kerry doing nothing, why not let Bush take the blame for his own mess? Why have a Democrat bail him out?

The foreign policy calculus is pretty similar. We don't have enough troops to fight the war we're in, let alone start another one. So there's no reason to fear Bush botching yet another war. And, as much as I desperately want to be wrong about this, the odds of Iraq evolving into a stable democracy look pretty grim right now. If such a scenario ever had any chance of succeeding, it would have required lots more ground troops to keep the peace and allow reconstruction. Now it's probably too late to do anything but salvage something short of total anarchy. If Kerry is president, conservatives will blame him for the failure in Iraq — if only we still had a leader of Bush's unwavering resolve, they'll claim, we would have won the war. If Bush is president, he'll be held accountable for his own bungling of the invasion.

That leaves the usual trump card — social policy. Plenty of my fellow liberals freak out at the thought of Bush appointing two or more Supreme Court justices. But maybe he deserves that too. Hear me out. Right now, Republicans get the best of both worlds. They get tens of millions of social conservatives marching to the polls to vote for them every two years but, because key points of the social-conservative agenda never gets enacted, they suffer hardly any political consequences for their positions.

Now, suppose Bush does appoint a couple justices. Maybe they will overturn Roe vs. Wade. If Roe falls, presumably states would decide how to deal with the abortion issue, and a reinvigorated pro-choice, center-left majority would be able to protect abortion rights in most places. In fact, the fear of a backlash would probably cause Bush's justices to chicken out and uphold Roe anyway. Then how would Republicans persuade social conservatives to keep supporting them?

Bush's presidency is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values — fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism — and his true record. Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate.



!

[Kuchana]

I turned in my absentee vote for Bush. Not like it's going to make much of a difference in this state but at least I voted for my choice.

[Yeahman]

I'm surprised you support SS, kitty. Social Security is as regressive a tax as you can get.
re: social security.

actually, it's not me paying for my parents. social security is its own investment program. you pay in, with the expectation that you will get paid when the time comes for you. instead of individual retirement accounts, it's a collctive retirement account. i don't disagree that the system could use tweaking, but are you honestly thinking that evaporation of the system would be a good idea?
Yes.
You pay for your parents. Your parents paid for the generation before them. SS is not an investment program in any way, shape, or form. Nothing is invested.

it was originally intended to help retirees, not be their sole source of income, but for many retirees, it is their sole source. for many soon to retire, it will be. and for all of us paying into the system, mandatorily, we're paying in with the agreement that we will be fairly compensated with a return. if the SS system were to disappear, there would be no way for those of us who have been paying in to be compensated.
Nope. We're paying for the current retirees. There is no currently guarentee that we will receive anything. There is no "agreement." And so eventually, unless we end SS, we will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or incur a deficit the likes of which we've never seen.

this isn't about whether or not you save your own money for retirement. nothing stops you from doing that.
Nothing may stop us. But ignorance stops the majority of Americans.

this is about the gov't taking your money, ellsworth, and saying 'you'll get it back in a few years', and then swindling you by disassembling the system before you hit 65. whether you NEED it is irrelevant, with any rapid phasing out of SS, one generation will get screwed, and right now, everyone thinks it's going to be yours and mine.
We can stop talking about SS like it's some investment account and start treating it like what it really is; just another tax. Once you understand that, then you realize that you have no right to SS benefits in the future. Happy now?

Besides, SS isn't necessarily a wholly bad thing. I think the principle of it is a good idea -- and rather than yell0's idea of individual accounts managed by the gov't, I think trying to equalize SS across the board, to give everyone a little something to live off of is a good idea. If you don't like it -- you can put a little more of your paycheque away and still live better than the average retiree when the time comes. I don't think the gov't should have the kind of power to regulate your ENTIRE retirement account, but they should ensure that everyone has enough for basic necessities when they are forced to retire.
How is your plan any better than mine? The accounts can be offered by the states but managed privately giving the individual a choice of approved funds.

Incidentally, there are plenty of people out there who live paycheque to paycheque. There's a whole class of people who are fully employed, honest hard-working people with legal jobs, who are still below the poverty line, because minimum wage is so low and costs of everything is skyrocketing. Their lack of a hefty savings account has nothing to do with 'paying for shit they don't need' or 'ignorance' and everything to do with trying to pay for stuff like food and shelter. Way to be blind elitists, people.
That is a great arguement against SS. Let people keep their paycheck and save for retirement if they want to. I happen to disagree. I think even they should be required to save some money for retirement because even the dirt poor NEED to save. But we can reduce the amount they need to save if we give them their own personal account which can be invested.

And let's be honest here, most Americans CAN save at least a little for retirement but many do not. They want their cable TV and manicures NOW.

[kitty]

Also, kitty, I don't agree that the reason for keeping SS is so we don't get screwed as opposed to earlier generations. Like some have said, SS isn't exactly an investment. Also I think the way you're saying it, it's almost a vicious cycle sort of argument. An "i'm already damned so may as well keep damning myself and damning future generations."

again. 'investment' was used in the meaning of 'entrust', not the investment banking way where you get % acruition. it's funny how everyone immediately jumped to that conclusion, when investment, as a word in the english language, doesn't always have that connotation attached, especially how i immediately qualified what i meant in the next few sentences after where it was initially used.

i didn't say we should keep SS around BECAUSE otherwise we get screwed, and i'm the first to agree that SS has some flaws, but the big reason why I don't think it should 'evaporate' (i.e., let's just kill the system) is because one generation gets screwed and it will be ours.

The reason I think we should keep it around is because I believe in not forcing people to retire and not work after a certain age, and then just letting them starve due to not giving them financial support. Sure, people can tighten their belts and put money towards a savings account, but minimum wage IS low. Even just eating, supporting a kid or two, etc, can eat into your ability to create an effective retirement account.

The reason why I think SS is good is because it allows everyone, regardless of wage, to get enough for basic necessities for the rest of their retired life. Sure, if you're rich, you can (and should) create an account for personal use. But if you CAN'T because you are living paycheque to paycheque, or because the amount you can put away is too small, then the gov't should provide enough for the basics for you to live. Otherwise, we might as well tell the poor and over 65 to go ahead and die, because we're not giving them any other alternative.

And, ells, you make barely minimum wage. But you live at home. You don't have to pay the kind of rent others in your situation would. How many are so lucky as to be able to funnel MOST of what you make into a savings account?

Then toss a couple of kids into the mix. Specially given that some in this thread would not give women who get pregnant and working minimum wage jobs the ability to abort the child due to financial situations.

as far as being willing to sacrifice what you've put in so far, well that's all well and good. What about those who've been paying into this system for the past ten or fifteen years? Should they just give up on ever seeing that money again?

It might be better or more efficient if instead of paying the payroll tax, we just invest in our retirement.


Individually? What about those who can't afford to put money away, or those who lose their investments?


That is a great arguement against SS. Let people keep their paycheck and save for retirement if they want to. I happen to disagree. I think even they should be required to save some money for retirement because even the dirt poor NEED to save. But we can reduce the amount they need to save if we give them their own personal account which can be invested.

And let's be honest here, most Americans CAN save at least a little for retirement but many do not. They want their cable TV and manicures NOW.

do you live paycheque to paycheque? do you have a minimum wage job? I think many of those below the poverty line, two full-time job single-parent family head of households would disagree with you.

[ellsworth81]

again. 'investment' was used in the meaning of 'entrust', not the investment banking way where you get % acruition. it's funny how everyone immediately jumped to that conclusion, when investment, as a word in the english language, doesn't always have that connotation attached, especially how i immediately qualified what i meant in the next few sentences after where it was initially used.


it's just an important distinction to note.


i didn't say we should keep SS around BECAUSE otherwise we get screwed, and i'm the first to agree that SS has some flaws, but the big reason why I don't think it should 'evaporate' (i.e., let's just kill the system) is because one generation gets screwed and it will be ours.


i still dont understand why "our generation" gets screwed. what age group is our generation, by the way? I'm only thinking of ppl 5 years older/younger than me.


The reason I think we should keep it around is because I believe in not forcing people to retire and not work after a certain age, and then just letting them starve due to not giving them financial support. Sure, people can tighten their belts and put money towards a savings account, but minimum wage IS low. Even just eating, supporting a kid or two, etc, can eat into your ability to create an effective retirement account.

Keeping SS around will not help low income ppl (who can't even collect the very SS incomes they need) support children or pay bills. It'll help them when they are 65 or so ...



The reason why I think SS is good is because it allows everyone, regardless of wage, to get enough for basic necessities for the rest of their retired life. Sure, if you're rich, you can (and should) create an account for personal use. But if you CAN'T because you are living paycheque to paycheque, or because the amount you can put away is too small, then the gov't should provide enough for the basics for you to live. Otherwise, we might as well tell the poor and over 65 to go ahead and die, because we're not giving them any other alternative.

Actually, with rising medical costs, SS is quickly becoming insufficient.

You don't need to be rich to put money away. You just have to be willing to sacrifice a little towards the future - like the ant who busted his ass and saved up food for the winter while the grasshopper just idled his time away. If you are living in utterly squalid conditions and absolutely need money, then SS is not the answer naturally. Technically welfare would be, but welfare is a short term solution. Unless you enable people to leave minimum wage jobs (i.e. through education), they are gonna be stuck in minimum wage jobs that aren't meant to be long-term jobs.

I don't think it's everyone else's responsibility to support others' grandparents. I would support them if there were some *tangible* benefit in doing so, but I can't think of any for some reason.


And, ells, you make barely minimum wage. But you live at home. You don't have to pay the kind of rent others in your situation would. How many are so lucky as to be able to funnel MOST of what you make into a savings account?


I *chose* to live at home because I *knew* I wouldn't be makin enough cash to be living on my own. I could've been like lots of other ppl and rush off to live on my own and get some bachelor pad. But I didn't. While I won't deny I'm lucky to have such resources, my parents (and probably everyone else's here) worked hard just the same to provide for their kids. They made money where they could and didn't splurge on anything.

Actually, how many of us really know how low income individuals/families are spending their money? From my meager experience, the most expensive things usually arent physical goods. it's things like rent/mortgage, utilities, tuition, medical insurance, etc. but i'll be the first to admit i don't know what rates low income ppl have to pay for those things i mentioned.


Then toss a couple of kids into the mix. Specially given that some in this thread would not give women who get pregnant and working minimum wage jobs the ability to abort the child due to financial situations.

Abortion issues aside, if you can't afford to raise children, then you damn well better be abstaining from intercourse. Rape and forced activities are a whole other issue obviously ...


as far as being willing to sacrifice what you've put in so far, well that's all well and good. What about those who've been paying into this system for the past ten or fifteen years? Should they just give up on ever seeing that money again?

Supposedly there are ways to kill SS in such a way that everyone gets their money back and finally eliminate the system. That is a solution that I'd be ok with, but honestly, I don't really care much for those other people.


Individually? What about those who can't afford to put money away, or those who lose their investments?

What *about* the ones who can't afford to save or lose any claim to SS? Either we all agree to subsidize some of their comforts, or they learn how to make do without comfort. People shouldn't have been depending on SS. Besides,

[Yeahman]

again. 'investment' was used in the meaning of 'entrust', not the investment banking way where you get % acruition. it's funny how everyone immediately jumped to that conclusion, when investment, as a word in the english language, doesn't always have that connotation attached, especially how i immediately qualified what i meant in the next few sentences after where it was initially used.
How is SS an investment in any sense of the word?

i didn't say we should keep SS around BECAUSE otherwise we get screwed, and i'm the first to agree that SS has some flaws, but the big reason why I don't think it should 'evaporate' (i.e., let's just kill the system) is because one generation gets screwed and it will be ours.
So if you want we can raise income taxes and just pay off whatever needs to be paid off to people who contributed to SS. That way everyone gets screwed equally.

The reason I think we should keep it around is because I believe in not forcing people to retire and not work after a certain age, and then just letting them starve due to not giving them financial support. Sure, people can tighten their belts and put money towards a savings account, but minimum wage IS low. Even just eating, supporting a kid or two, etc, can eat into your ability to create an effective retirement account.

The reason why I think SS is good is because it allows everyone, regardless of wage, to get enough for basic necessities for the rest of their retired life. Sure, if you're rich, you can (and should) create an account for personal use. But if you CAN'T because you are living paycheque to paycheque, or because the amount you can put away is too small, then the gov't should provide enough for the basics for you to live. Otherwise, we might as well tell the poor and over 65 to go ahead and die, because we're not giving them any other alternative.

And, ells, you make barely minimum wage. But you live at home. You don't have to pay the kind of rent others in your situation would. How many are so lucky as to be able to funnel MOST of what you make into a savings account?

Then toss a couple of kids into the mix. Specially given that some in this thread would not give women who get pregnant and working minimum wage jobs the ability to abort the child due to financial situations.
You forget that the poor MUST also pay their SS taxes. They aren't getting by for free. We are imposing this extremely regressive tax on them! Why are you for this? Better off just expanding welfare if you're that worried about the poor seniors.

BTW what are you talking about "forced to retire?"

as far as being willing to sacrifice what you've put in so far, well that's all well and good. What about those who've been paying into this system for the past ten or fifteen years? Should they just give up on ever seeing that money again?
That's what we do with taxes. Do you think that you personally receive the full benefits of your taxes? Some of it goes to welfare and medicare and building stadiums and providing kids with school lunches. We are paying a SS tax to aid the elderly. You have no right to that money once Uncle Sam gets a hold of it. There is no law stating that you must receive SS in the future. We expect it because that's what the politicans tell us.
But like I said before, if you don't like the SS tax collected seperately we can just collect it with your income tax. At least then it'll be progressive. So end the SS tax and those who have already paid in will receive their share from a higher income tax.

Individually? What about those who can't afford to put money away, or those who lose their investments?
If they can't put money away why should they be forced to pay SS?! It's the same thing!
And losing investments is a risk of investment. If you don't want to lose it you can choose to put it in a money market or something. Even the most conservative investment is better than what we have now which is no investment.

do you live paycheque to paycheque? do you have a minimum wage job? I think many of those below the poverty line, two full-time job single-parent family head of households would disagree with you.
Most Americans live below the poverty line? Do you have the figures? Please share.

[Arex]

You don't need to be rich to put money away. You just have to be willing to sacrifice a little towards the future - like the ant who busted his ass and saved up food for the winter while the grasshopper just idled his time away.Don't you understand that this is only possible if you're making enough money to both pay your basic living expenses while still having something left over to actually save? One needn't be living a life of excess to not have sufficient money to put away at the end of the day. A minimum wage job is barely going to net you $1,000 per month, assuming a 40 hour work week. That's barely enough just to cover rent in a lot of places, much less food, utilities, telephone, gas, auto insurance. Not everyone has the luxury of living at home with their mommies and daddies to minimize those expenses. You say you made the conscious decision to not move out because you knew you weren't making enough. What if you were here on your own and didn't have the parents to fall back on? I don't think anyone could fault you because you were unable to save for retirement given those circumstances.

I don't think it's everyone else's responsibility to support others' grandparents. I would support them if there were some *tangible* benefit in doing so, but I can't think of any for some reason. So ensuring that those of retiring age are able to pay for basic necessities of life such as rent, food, water, electricity, medicine is not a sufficient "tangible" benefit itself? I guess you'd prefer we forced these people to work until the day they die? And if they can't find work anymore, I guess they ought to roam the streets and rummage through garbage cans for food? Remember these people did pay into the system to allow others to retire before them. Why shouldn't they be able to receive a similar benefit at our expense? Also, don't forget that your parents will be entitled to collect SS benefits, the same as everyone else, because of their prior contributions into the system, irrespective of their own personal savings accounts. Obviously, it's always better to save money for the future 'cause under the present system you'll have two retirement funds to collect from. But not everyone has that option.

But like I said before, if you don't like the SS tax collected seperately we can just collect it with your income tax. At least then it'll be progressive. So end the SS tax and those who have already paid in will receive their share from a higher income tax.That's the only solution I see if we're ever to transition to a system where individuals pay into their own accounts without disrupting current benefits. Of course, Bush isn't likely to raise taxes, so I'm left wondering how the hell he expects to pay for this. Sometimes I think that guy expects the world to end within the next 15 years given the way he spends money the country doesn't have.

RX

[kitty]

i still dont understand why "our generation" gets screwed. what age group is our generation, by the way? I'm only thinking of ppl 5 years older/younger than me.

Our generation, in this case, would refer to those of us who are in the workforce, who've been working for a few years to twenty years, still have some time left in the system, and have been paying SS for awhile. The ones that neither Bush nor Kerry are referring to as far as SS benefits. Those two only promise that those who are retired or who are about to retire will get their benefits.


Keeping SS around will not help low income ppl (who can't even collect the very SS incomes they need) support children or pay bills. It'll help them when they are 65 or so ...


Exactly, those Americans who can't afford to put enough away to keep their basic needs met when they are forced to retire will be benefitting. SS is intended to ensure that all retirees, regardless of income, are able to live and eat, after we force them to stop working.


Actually, with rising medical costs, SS is quickly becoming insufficient.


I'll agree with that, but I think that's a problem of reducing medical costs rather than increasing SS.


You don't need to be rich to put money away. You just have to be willing to sacrifice a little towards the future - like the ant who busted his ass and saved up food for the winter while the grasshopper just idled his time away. If you are living in utterly squalid conditions and absolutely need money, then SS is not the answer naturally. Technically welfare would be, but welfare is a short term solution. Unless you enable people to leave minimum wage jobs (i.e. through education), they are gonna be stuck in minimum wage jobs that aren't meant to be long-term jobs.


That's funny that you would think that minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be long-term jobs. Only in certain affluent areas are minimum wage jobs concerned 'temporary' or 'for high school kids'. The truth is that for many Americans, this is their means of income. This is the best they can do -- they support themselves and their households on $5.65 and hour or something.

They live under squalid conditions, but welfare won't help because that's only for those who are unemployed. There is also a huge problem with underemployment in this country -- people who work a full-time job and who live in as poor conditions as those who are unemployed, because of high costs and low income. Some sort of gov't help for people with these jobs would be nice, but that's not the issue. The issue is on SS, which will benefit these people when they retire, because these are families that have no or very little disposable income they can be squirreling away for retirement.


I don't think it's everyone else's responsibility to support others' grandparents. I would support them if there were some *tangible* benefit in doing so, but I can't think of any for some reason.


And here's the fundamental difference. I belive that it is the government's duty to maintain a basic level of living for all its citizens. It's the 'I care about total strangers being able to live, and it's our responsibility as a society to improve the worst living conditions', and those who disagree with welfare tend to believe it's the fault or responsiblity of the poor for pulling themselves out. it's the 'fuck 'em, i don't give a shit about those i don't have to interact with' mentality.

There is no tangible benefit for you, other than the general improvement of our society and the pursuit of equality for all. For me, at least, that's benefit enough.


I *chose* to live at home because I *knew* I wouldn't be makin enough cash to be living on my own. I could've been like lots of other ppl and rush off to live on my own and get some bachelor pad. But I didn't. While I won't deny I'm lucky to have such resources, my parents (and probably everyone else's here) worked hard just the same to provide for their kids. They made money where they could and didn't splurge on anything.


But, not everyone has a family they can live with that will allow them to not pay rent. For some people, there is no mommy and daddy to help ease costs.


Actually, how many of us really know how low income individuals/families are spending their money? From my meager experience, the most expensive things usually arent physical goods. it's things like rent/mortgage, utilities, tuition, medical insurance, etc. but i'll be the first to admit i don't know what rates low income ppl have to pay for those things i mentioned.


Then how can you characterize low-income families as those who splurge? Costs differ according to where you live, but minimum wage is always the same. So, if you factor a minimum wage full-time job, you get that one person working that job earns, before taxes, roughly $900 a month. So, let's say we drop income taxes, as you are suggesting we do.

Do you honestly think one person, paying for rent, utilities, food, clothing, insurance and miscellaneous necessities could really put anything away on that?


Abortion issues aside, if you can't afford to raise children, then you damn well better be abstaining from intercourse. Rape and forced activities are a whole other issue obviously ...


Wow. Poor people should be denied that elitist pleasure of having sex?


What *about* the ones who can't afford to save or lose any claim to SS? Either we all agree to subsidize some of their comforts, or they learn how to make do without comfort. People shouldn't have been depending on SS. Besides,

We're not talking SS subsidizing a trip to Cancun. We're talking about people who would otherwise be on the streets when they retire.

How is SS an investment in any sense of the word?


It is an investment (i.e. entrusting, putting in) or our money into a universal pool, out of which we will receive our return. Invest as in to entrust.


So if you want we can raise income taxes and just pay off whatever needs to be paid off to people who contributed to SS. That way everyone gets screwed equally.


Let's take more money out of my paycheque to pay me back. Yes, that makes sense.


You forget that the poor MUST also pay their SS taxes. They aren't getting by for free. We are imposing this extremely regressive tax on them! Why are you for this? Better off just expanding welfare if you're that worried about the poor seniors.


Yes they do pay their own SS and no they aren't getting by for free. You're arguing my point for me.

Everyone pays a cut of their income into SS. Those in low-income families will get more back than they put in, but enough to ensure they don't drop dead when they retire.


BTW what are you talking about "forced to retire?"


Retirement age is 65. Most companies force their employees to retire by that point. My father was, so he moved to Asia so he could continue to work. Most people aren't that lucky.


That's what we do with taxes. Do you think that you personally receive the full benefits of your taxes? Some of it goes to welfare and medicare and building stadiums and providing kids with school lunches. We are paying a SS tax to aid the elderly. You have no right to that money once Uncle Sam gets a hold of it. There is no law stating that you must receive SS in the future. We expect it because that's what the politicans tell us.


Yes, that is the point of welfare programs. You invest the money into the government, and they return that to you in various benefits. You don't benefit from all the programs, but society as a whole does.

I think we should expect SS or at least some compensation, however, because the program is set up so that we fund it separately from other taxes, with the understanding that we will get a return. For many, that is the money they would normally be squirreling away into a retirement fund or a general savings account. You can't just say 'oops, that money evaporated. sorry, you can go die in the streets now'.


But like I said before, if you don't like the SS tax collected seperately we can just collect it with your income tax. At least then it'll be progressive. So end the SS tax and those who have already paid in will receive their share from a higher income tax.

in what form? you advocate just cutting everyone a cheque?


If they can't put money away why should they be forced to pay SS?! It's the same thing!
And losing investments is a risk of investment. If you don't want to lose it you can choose to put it in a money market or something. Even the most conservative investment is better than what we have now which is no investment.


Because you pay into SS, but you get more out than if you personally invested all of that money yourself. I think you're working under the assumption that everyone makes enough that putting away what they pay in SS into a bank account would sustain them post-65 for the rest of their lives. That just isn't the case.


Most Americans live below the poverty line? Do you have the figures? Please share.

I said, "most who live below the poverty line would disagree with you". Nowhere did I state or otherwise imply that most Americans live below the poverty line. However, if you are interested, roughly 12% of Americans live below the poverty line.
More Americans below poverty line


The number of Americans living in poverty grew for the third successive year during 2003, swelling to almost 36 million people.

The figures will be unwelcome news for President George Bush, struggling to convince voters ahead of November elections that he has the economy back on track.

According to the annual Census Bureau report, another 1.3 million Americans slid into poverty during the year, taking the total to 35.9 million, around 12.5% of the population. That was up from 34.5 million (12.1%) in 2002.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry seized on the numbers as evidence that the Bush administration's economic policies had failed.

During Mr Bush's years in the White House 4.3 million people have fallen into poverty and 5.2 million have lost their health insurance. "Under George Bush's watch, America's families are falling further behind," Mr Kerry said.

The growth in poverty was most marked among children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, some 17.6% of the under-18 population. That was an increase of 800,000 from 2002.

Around 24.4% of African-Americans are living below the poverty line, the highest incidence among racial groups.

The number of people without health insurance grew by about 1.4m people last year. Nearly 45m people are without health coverage, around 15.6% of the population.

The Republican senator Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate health, education, labour and pensions committee, defended the president's record. He said the 2003 study failed to take full account of the president's tax cuts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1291859,00.html


At the time that this article was written, the unemployment rate was roughly 5%, so we're talking something like 7% of Americans who are employed, who still live below the poverty line.

Sometimes I think that guy expects the world to end within the next 15 years given the way he spends money the country doesn't have.


I think Bush belongs to the camp of religious zealots who honestly believe that the world is going to end within our lifetimes.

[Yeahman]

kitty, can you put forward your views because you're arguing both sides of the issue here.

Forget SS for a second. Suppose I proposed an income tax hike of 6.2% on all brackets. Those in the 10% bracket will now pay 16.2% and those in the 35% bracket will now pay 41.2%. But nobody has to pay over $87,000 in taxes over a lifetime so we don't overly burden the rich. I will use this tax to give all Americans over 65 a salary. Not only will the rich seniors also receive this salary but their's will be higher. Now will you support my proposal? If not, you cannot support SS. They are identical except that the SS tax is collected seperately from income tax. I think you seem to have this idea that because SS is listed in a seperate column on paychecks, that it isn't a tax or that somehow this flat tax is not as bad as a progressive income tax.

If you really wanted to help the poor, you'd be calling for paying for SS through income tax since it is progressive. And maybe we'll give it only to the needy. Suddenly SS looks exactly like welfare and there's no need for SS.

Bottom line: SS hurts the poor!

Let's take more money out of my paycheque to pay me back. Yes, that makes sense.
Sounds crazy, right? That's what SS is!

If we end the SS tax now, people can still receive SS benefits according to what they put in already. Just raise the income tax. Get rid of the $87,000 limit and the income tax hike won't have to be as high as 6.2%. So when someone in their 20's today, retires they won't be receiving very much in SS but everyone will get what they put in.

But along with ending SS, let's establish a tax-free retirement account. Offered by the states and managed by private investment firms approved by the state. This can be made voluntary or mandatory. If mandatory it's very similar to SS but without all the drawbacks. The individual has some control over the investment. There is no maximum limit on contributions and he can move his money from approved fund to approved fund. There's everything from aggressive stock funds to bonds held to maturation. Can you lose money? Yes. Maybe require that a certain percentage be held in conservative vehicles. But in any case, do you really think that this plan is worse than the one we have now?

[BigLew]

How do you financially burden the rich? That sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[kitty]

kitty, can you put forward your views because you're arguing both sides of the issue here.

How so? My basic position is that we need a system like SS to help low-income families be able to provide for their basic necessities after we force them to retire.


Forget SS for a second. Suppose I proposed an income tax hike of 6.2% on all brackets. Those in the 10% bracket will now pay 16.2% and those in the 35% bracket will now pay 41.2%. But nobody has to pay over $87,000 in taxes over a lifetime so we don't overly burden the rich. I will use this tax to give all Americans over 65 a salary. Not only will the rich seniors also receive this salary but their's will be higher. Now will you support my proposal? If not, you cannot support SS. They are identical except that the SS tax is collected seperately from income tax. I think you seem to have this idea that because SS is listed in a seperate column on paychecks, that it isn't a tax or that somehow this flat tax is not as bad as a progressive income tax.


You seem to think my support of SS is akin to communism or something. I didn't say that all Americans over 65 should live with the same quality of life. I don't have a problem with the poor still paying a bit into the system to get more out than they would otherwise, as long as that salary covers their basic necessities. And yes, there should still be an incentive for the wealthy -- if, as you say, the wealthy retirees get a slightly higher cheque (and if this works for the system... that would probably be the flaw I would point to in the current SS system, if that is indeed how it works) then that would be acceptable in order to ensure that the system still maintains a certain incentive for the wealthy to pay into it.


If you really wanted to help the poor, you'd be calling for paying for SS through income tax since it is progressive. And maybe we'll give it only to the needy. Suddenly SS looks exactly like welfare and there's no need for SS.


Except that I don't think that's fair. We're forcing all people over 65 to stop working. So all people over 65 who can't hold a job should have their basic needs met equally, regardless of what wages they earned before they retired.


Bottom line: SS hurts the poor!


No it doesn't. It just helps the wealthy a little while it helps the poor.


Sounds crazy, right? That's what SS is!


Actually, you get paid back after retirement, by the fund. But that money isn't in existence right now, because the fund is paying out to people who are currently retired.

That makes sense.

The quote you quoted was in the context of you advocating an immediate turnaround of funds being returned, under pretense of 'paying us back'. In one case, it's like a mother taking part of her child's halloween candy away, giving it to the child's younger brother, and then promising to give part of the brother's candy to the first child in a few days, after the first child'ss eaten the rest of its candy.

In your "rebuttal", it's like the child getting upset, so the mother taking more of the child's candy, then turning around, and handing it back saying 'there, now you're not missing any candy'.

That's dumb.


If we end the SS tax now, people can still receive SS benefits according to what they put in already. Just raise the income tax. Get rid of the $87,000 limit and the income tax hike won't have to be as high as 6.2%. So when someone in their 20's today, retires they won't be receiving very much in SS but everyone will get what they put in.


but that return will be subsidized by taxes you remove through income tax from your own paycheque. you're not getting your money back -- you're having someone take more from your income, then handing it back to you saying it's a return on what you invested.

unless i'm misunderstanding what you're trying to advocate. but that's what it sounds like to me.


But along with ending SS, let's establish a tax-free retirement account. Offered by the states and managed by private investment firms approved by the state. This can be made voluntary or mandatory. If mandatory it's very similar to SS but without all the drawbacks. The individual has some control over the investment. There is no maximum limit on contributions and he can move his money from approved fund to approved fund. There's everything from aggressive stock funds to bonds held to maturation. Can you lose money? Yes. Maybe require that a certain percentage be held in conservative vehicles. But in any case, do you really think that this plan is worse than the one we have now?

so basically... privatized social security? the problem with that system is that it ignores the whole good point of SS -- that it aids those low-income families who, by themselves, couldn't save enough to pay for their own retirement needs.

[ChinaLama]

Well, if the poor also play SS taxes, it DOES hurt them-- they're being forced to pay something with the little money that they have, but they have no guarantee of enjoying retirement (no one can tell when they're going to die). So rather than force them to pay an SS tax, a more socially equitable method would probably be, as yell0 said, to increase the scope of welfare and decrease or eliminate Social Security. The way it's set up now, we're FORCED to pay for others' retirement with the hope that we can also enjoy the same benefits later. For the poor, I would imagine they would like this system LESS than someone with more means.

[kimpossible]

Reason to vote for Bush: you have a rather clear idea of what you're getting because he's the incumbent. According to some of the investment shows I've been watching the market will have a slightly more favorable reaction to the re-election of the incumbent.

[kitty]

i checked and yell0, you're wrong. everyone pays into SS, but different amounts depending on their income. they pay-out is universally the same. so your analogy about the 6.2% income tax thing is inherently flawed because you propose a system in which the rich receive more when they retire.

SS 'hurts' the poor in that they pay into the system, but it's not like there's a clear line between 'rich' and 'poor'. just for sheer stability of the system alone, everyone should pay in to get the SS cheque after 65. would you really be in favour of a system in which some with jobs pay nothing and get the same cheque as others? where would you draw the line?

I think the system is fair for all parties if everyone pays to keep it in existence. otherwise, i simply don't think there's any fair way to create a system in which poor people don't pay anything and still get a retirement cheque.

Well, if the poor also play SS taxes, it DOES hurt them-- they're being forced to pay something with the little money that they have, but they have no guarantee of enjoying retirement (no one can tell when they're going to die). So rather than force them to pay an SS tax, a more socially equitable method would probably be, as yell0 said, to increase the scope of welfare and decrease or eliminate Social Security. The way it's set up now, we're FORCED to pay for others' retirement with the hope that we can also enjoy the same benefits later. For the poor, I would imagine they would like this system LESS than someone with more means.

well there's no guarantee that anyone will make it to 65, so that's not really an argument. That's a universal gamble, not just something that explicitly hurts the poor.

Welfare only helps those who are poor and unemployed. SS is not welfare, because it is given to everyone in the system, regardless of income. Why? Because we force all people, regardless of income, to retire after a certain age. SS is designed to compensate for that sudden, and pretty much state-mandated, loss of income.

It just happens to help the poor because the amount of pay-out is equalized across all classes, and the pay-out is greater than anything the poor would be able to save on their own. So 'hurt' is a very now "now" way of looking at the system -- by that logic, than SS hurts everyone, because no one under 65 can