home

Open Thread: SOTU

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:05:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Go ahead, live blog or comment, - your turn. Here's a segment of the speech:

Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat - and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than 300 billion dollars. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

And one more:

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Stem cell research:

I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity.

< Excerpts From Bush's SOTU | Bush: Don't Trust Anyone Over 30 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread: SOTU | 61 comments (61 topical)
    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    uh what did these people risk to dip their fingers in ink?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:18:28 PM EST
    Pfft those damn workers and their frivolous "Asbestos" claim...we all know theres never been any proven risk that Asbestos is harmful to health...it's upsurd, it's like saying that smoking causes this so called "cancer"....the liberal elite must be behind all of this

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:19:24 PM EST
    As I sit watching this, I am simply awestruck that millions of poor people voted to hand our nation over completely to Corporatist elitism & militarism. Everything he's saying is Corporate speak applied to government; that is to say, it is misleading, overly-rosy, or a blatant lie. Even when he's saying what his constituents want to hear, he's lying. His administration has proven it isn't fiscally conservative. As if Pell Grants will help the poor go to college. You really want to help the majority of 1st year undergraduate students -- lower the age for access to maximum unsubsidized stafford loans from 24 to 18 & increase funding for financial aid counselors such that those advising 18 year olds in their most important life decisions are paid more than $6/hour.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:52:24 PM EST
    Tampa Student: What have the Democrats offered other than complete socialism? This turns off many people like myself.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#5)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    Jeffery- What has the Right offered except sweeping generalizations and absolutist rhetoric like yours? This turns off many people like myself.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#6)
    by wishful on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    The sweeping general lies being told appeal strongly to the emotions of the wingers. Finally, I concede. The president has convinced me that the only way to respond is emotionally, just like those in congress who support his plans, and those in the country who voted for him. My heart is broken. I am grieving for the loss of a great democracy of, by and for the people. Is that emotional enough?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    That is why we are so divided as a country. For instance, while listening to the Democrat response, I don't believe a word out of his/her mouth. It is your perspective. For me, the federal government should only have one job: protection (i.e., military and law enforcement). The rest should be left in local control. If your area wants to x and y, then they should have the right to it. But don't force x and y in my area if we don't want it. That would be my ideal. But we can't have this type of life, due to decisions on both sides.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#8)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    The Prof says TLers ought to be pleased with the programs on DNA and training of defense lawyers for capital cases. Try it. Say, "that's good". Or, you could insist it's a dastardly plot which, by reducing the number of falsely accused or convicted perps, takes away one of your issues. Like fixing Social Security would take away a dem issue.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#9)
    by ras on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    Let's review:
    Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before.
    True. This is a relatively simple projection to confirm.
    For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat - and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than 300 billion dollars. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.
    Also true and easy to verify. As to whether or not the private accounts (which I think are a good idea) are necessary to solve the the funding problem, they're not. Long-term, they'll help, but it'll be like nibbling around the edges of that prob, tho they're useful for other reasons as well. The adjustments to the retirement age are inevitable because they're needed. Live long & prosper.
    Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
    No concrete statement of plan/action here, just a blanket "I support" statement. Looks like a sop, to be followed by the sound of tumblin' tumbleweeds.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#10)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    Jeffery- Yet you support an administration that is equally as bad as you consider the Dems to be when it comes to the very issue of States Rights. The difference between you and me is I don't believe either of them. The ones on the left scare me a little less from a historical perspective, that's all.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    Remember what "personal accounts" means: Personal accounts are personal: they're not backed by the government. If Wall Street steers you into a bad investment, that's your personal problem If government regulations allow Wall Street to charge you exorbitant fees, well that's your personal problem too. In short, when you have a personal account and anything goes wrong, that's your personal problem. That's what the ownership society is all about. Don't bother the government with your personal problems.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:51:30 PM EST
    if social security needs to be fixed, lets wait till we have a competent administration to do it. Until then hands off.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    I live-blogged it here.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    Bush has a conflict of interest when he addresses asbestos claims. See the Bush family interests in Dresser Industries (later acquired by Halliburton). The Bush family greed is without bounds.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 08:08:39 PM EST
    It is horrifying. Lie after irresponsible lie. Blatant whoring of the Iraqi people's courage. SS is not broke and marriage does not need "saving" or "protecting." I feel like I am watching lambs (senior citizens, gays, and our children) being led to the slaughter.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#18)
    by cp on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:19:58 PM EST
    ras, apparently, you've bought into the republican lie about the social security "crisis", and the impending "bankruptcy" of the program. i have checked, and neither are verifiable at all, by anyone other than, well...........the president. of course, he won't share with us. fortunately, the cbo and trust fund trustees will. according to their projections, based on a 75 year projection period, current revenues will not start exceeding current expenditures until 2024 and 2018, respectively. further, the trust fund will not be completely consumed until 2052 and 2042, respectively. differences are the result of more conservative estimates of independent variables, by the trust fund actuaries. in either event, until the trust fund is completely exhauseted, 100% of benefits will be paid. subsequently, 75% and 83% of benefits will be paid, into the forseeable future. that assumes nothing is done in the interim. also, those future benefits will be much higher than are presently paid, as a consequence of rising wage levels. both the cbo and the trust fund trustees agree that, with minor tweaking, the program will be fully funded for the next hundred years. the only "crisis" in the social security program is in the minds of the republicans, who've been trying to kill it since 1935. it is the "bankruptcy" of morals in the republican party, that allows them to lie with a straight face to the citizens of this country, regarding the future health of social security. paul krugman, an economist penning an op/ed column for the ny times, rather neatly destroys the argument for privatization of social security, in a feb. 1, 2005 column. here's the link: [link deleted, not in html format]

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    From the perspective of public policy and narrative, President Bush's 2005 State of the Union Address brought few surprises. But for sheer chutzpah, President Bush reached new heights. 1. The Social Security Shell Game As expected, Bush focused on Social Security privatization. Also as expected, he continued the selective use of numbers to create the phantasm of a "crisis." Needless to say, there was no mention of the $2 trillion cost and the serious risks of private accounts. Even more cynical, Bush in the guise of flexibility introduced politically unpopular trial balloons for Social Security, all of which he attributed to Democrats (Bill Clinton on raising the retirement age, John Breaux on ending early collection of benefits, Tim Penny on indexing benefits to inflation, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan on benefit calculations.) [intervening text deleted due to length, follow the links to read the rest] In a nutshell, the speech was what one would expect from Mr. Personality. But judging from the instant CNN web poll results, the 60% positive rating by viewers showed that, as usual, it seemed to work for him. For the details, see: "State of Denial"

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:25:26 PM EST
    The careful scripting and choreography of President Bush’s State of the Union speech Wednesday evening seemed to peak with what the paid media suggested was a symbolic unscripted moment; a hug between Janet Norwood, the mother of fallen Marine Byron Norwood, and Safia Taleb al-Souhail, a representative of the Iraqi people. Seconds after the hug, however, cameras caught the real symbolic unscripted moment as Ms. Al-Souhail’s bracelet (shown in the inset photo) became snagged on dog tags worn by Mrs. Norwood. Seared into my mind was the fleeting image of Mrs. Norwood’s eyes and panicked fingers as she attempted to extricate her dead son’s military identification from the snare of Ms. Al-Souhail’s symbol-drenched wrist jewelry. The President too, from the jig is up look in his beady eyes, seemed to recognize that the planned unscripted moment had been upstaged by a real unscripted moment but he, as trained, soldiered on. The post speech paid media, as if to prove the real unscripted moment’s power, gushed shamelessly over the allegedly spontaneous hug while quickly scampering over the bracelet/dog tag snag if it was mentioned at all. As Thursday unfolds it will be interesting to see if this symbol redolent of quagmire, The Snag, gets further play.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:26:58 PM EST
    Did anyone ever wander why our children are dying of cancer? You know in the fifties, American’s children where all exposed to radiation all over this country and they had no idea what they were exposed to! You know hiding under your desk??????? The amounts of radiation that is in your parents or friends are so great that it is almost easy, to not realize that peoples die because government did not care. Iraq success was because the army took the media where they knew there would be a high turn out. Remember that the media has not been able to walk freely in Baghdad. It was just a show for the world. [text of Fisk quote deleted due to length] I guess it was a big orchestrated military’s propaganda? It is nothing more, than to make GWB more “Godly”, for his speech tonight. And f**k this country! Why peoples do not realized that the SS fund has been raided every year by those self serving politicians? If you think the SS is a fund that is safe? Think again. Asked you senators and congressmen that you re-elected, over and over again what they do about that fun? That is sickening. People re-elected Thurmond in his 90”s even that they knew he was a liar a racist, hated blacks! While, on the side had a black family? He was a great Republican. Canada did sign into law today the rights to marry for lesbians and gay men. This is real democracy for all. Free society, while we the United States going the religious take over! We are going backward. Hail to the chief! Hitler was loved by all in GERMANY

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    Just a quick point on the whole Gay Marriage thing. Why Do you all think the Government gives tax advantages and recognition to marriage at all? The answer is Children. The state must have a population to exist. Also, A married couple is theprimary support base for all the future taxpayers, soldiers, and workerbees they produce. Gays do not produce children, so what benefit does the state get for giving them a tax break for getting hitched? The only thing it would do is piss off a majority of the population and create an even greater caseload for the divorce courts. My last sentence was by no means trying to claim Gays will divorce any more or less rapidly than straights- just that some will.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    The President again spreads a false idea that SS will be bankrupt. Others have already noted that this is just not going to be the case. The plan does present some logical inconsistencies. First, a restricted set of investment options will make it hare to obtain the return on investment to make the numbers work. The greater the share in bonds, the lower the rate of return. Has anyone looked at the congressional thrift program to determine what its track record has been. Second, no details were given as to how to factor in the $2 trillion necessary in the first 10 years to phase the program in. Third, benefits will be reduced for retirees. I am 52 years old. I will have to do a lot of new saving to make up the difference with the reductions to come under the new system. Pegging increases to inflation and not wage growth will also reduce my return. Something I could have dealt with tenty of thirty years ago. I guess that the magic of compounding will not be available now.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:26:19 PM EST
    j.mohr, you are right, but the system will be collapsed by the time you are 65, the reason why is the government knows that all of are power and money and jobs will be in china within 10 years, just check out what bill gates said and what our economic elite are saying. within 20 years we will be made up of third world people's and at that point forget about any kind of social bennies, or the ideals of social justice or the ideals of eating each day, Bush and gang will see to that, two word's "treachery" "tyranny"

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:43:34 AM EST
    And still no mention of the bogeyman in the closet....Medicare/Medicaid

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:06:22 AM EST
    The difference between you and me is I don't believe either of them. The ones on the left scare me a little less from a historical perspective, that's all
    My sentiments exactly, Adept. Everyday decent people don't go into politics. Politicians on both sides must have a good laugh at night over their brandy and cigars (paid for by us)over how wingers swallow their swill. We subsidize the decline of the grand experiment, how sad.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:23:29 AM EST
    Adept - Quit selling fear. Bush mentioned several safety nets, and no one has to invest 100% of their 4% in high risk stocks. As for broker fees, surely you have heard of no load mutal funds. (If I have to explain it, you haven't. As someone at your local bank.) And I am sure funds consisting of US Treasury Notes will be available. Since they are what the Social Security surplus is invested in, surely they are safe enough for an individual to invest in, through a mutal fund specializing in them. J.Moir - What has been the Return On Investment for the individual FICA taxpayer over the past 30 years? Remember, you pay in before tax, and then you pay FIT tax again when you start receiving payments. Yes the tax on what you are paid is somewhat means tested, but you must almost be at the poverty level to avoid. Bedsides. Why should anyone pay taxes on money they have already paid taxes on? (Thanks, DA.) et al - If SS is such a great deal, why aren't members of Congress in it? Ask your Senator or Congress to explain the plan they are in, and then ask them how you can get in. You would love it. sean - So far you have the Tin Hat award. But the thread is short. so there - You obviously didn't watch the speech. He specifically said that everyone over 55 would not be effected. cp - What if you are wrong? What if Bush is right? What happens when the ratio to payer to receiver drops tp 2 to 1, 1.5 to 1, 1 to 1?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:28:34 AM EST
    To the Dems sitting on their hands last night and their toadies here, I say: If you have a better idea, now's the time. Hello.. Hello...

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:34:11 AM EST
    Gerry Owen opined: "Just a quick point on the whole Gay Marriage thing. Why Do you all think the Government gives tax advantages and recognition to marriage at all?" Well, it's a great way to pander to voters, for one thing. Plus it's a safe bet--makes a lot of voters happy while alienating relatively few. "The answer is Children." Ummm, no Gerry. People have and will have plenty of children, regardless of whether or not we give them tax breaks for doing so. "Gays do not produce children, so what benefit does the state get for giving them a tax break for getting hitched?" A more stable, prosperous society, are two benefits that the state gets. Marriage tends to help people mature, make and keep long term goals, and build wealth together. Think about what you're saying, Gerry: only marriges with children really matter. So now we should not allow people who can't have kids to marry? Should we penalize couples who could have children, but choose not to? Do you really think that people will quit having children, or quit getting married, if we let gay couples marry? This line of thinking is really preposterous, if you stop to think about it. It is also tremendously offensive to those married couples who choose not to have kids, because you're basically saying that their marriage isn't a "real" marriage. It's a civil rights issue, Gerry. Just like in the 50's when certain states wouldn't let blacks and whites marry. People came up with all kinds of "logical" reasons why it should remain illegal, but underneath it all were the ugly spectors of ignorance and racism.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:36:03 AM EST
    Does anyone know the rate of return for the Congressional thrift plan? We really cannot make a reasoned evaluation of the proposed plan without a comparative basis. YES, I know the return on my SS contributions. Now I need something to compare it to.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:45:29 AM EST
    Dr Ace, you want a better idea? Remove the earnings cap on income subject to Social Security withholding, then let's crunch the numbers and talk.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:52:42 AM EST
    It's usually very painful to watch George Bush speak, but his SOTU speech was one of his better moments.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 07:06:13 AM EST
    So you are defining "being pandered to" as a "Civil Right"? The whole purpose of marriage is propagation- no one is suggesting ridiculous "if you can't have kids you can't marry" arguments, but that is the main purpose of marriage in society- the stability and other benefits are additional positive products of the institution. The government stands little to gain by extending tax benefits to married gay couples, so why should they? As a political issue, the issue is a big loser- every state that has put it forward has passed the ban- Only Oregon came within single digits of allowing it. I fail to see the Human Rights Quotient in this issue. Gays can live together and do anything a married couple can with the right set of legal agreements except get the Married tax breaks- and there is no benefit to the State for providing them one.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#32)
    by jerry on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:02:39 AM EST
    All I witnessed last night was an American dictator in action. He has pulled the wool over the eyes of the US citizens and the spineless dems will do their usual sabre rattling but he'll continue to bulldoze his ideas onto the public. It's like watching cattle at feeding time. Whatever BS he hands out they eat it up. What a labotimized society we've become. When the smoke clears and the reality of trillions in debt sets in after he has left office, and the war is in it's 6th year, try and remember the carrier landing and the "Mission acomplished sign". Then the moaning and groaning will start. "We should have done something", the masses will cry. You had your chance twice, and twice you put him in office. Fools!

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:06:24 AM EST
    300 billion a year (40 years or so from now)? Wow. With that kind of money, even in today's dollars, why, we could invade and occupy yet another country or two!

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    Jerry- "we" (i.e. 51%) only put him in office once- the second time.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    still waiting for the actual turnout figures from Iraq -- odd the ballots have been counted once and still no turn out figures have been released I guess they don't want to make a liar out Bush and Big Pharma and friends

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    Jerry The same was said about President Clinton. How could America vote that loser into office twice. Screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. America is a federal republic not a totalitarian or authoritarianism government. America does not become a dictatorship just because you don’t like the current administrations policies.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#38)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    PPJ- You said: Adept - Quit selling fear. Bush mentioned several safety nets, and no one has to invest 100% of their 4% in high risk stocks. As for broker fees, surely you have heard of no load mutal funds. (If I have to explain it, you haven't. As someone at your local bank.) I made no such claim, nor did I "sell fear". As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show where I made any statement even close to your little tirade about SS or no load mutual funds. Once again, the wingnuts are so quick to spew their bile they can't even be bothered to aim straight.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    DA - You are hard to compliment. I say thanks for the info and you get all huffy puffy, thinking I am referring to the politics. Actually, I wasn't, but hey, a day without a nasty gram from you is like a day without rain. Very nice. As for using terms, are you being snarky? As you know, there is taxable income and non-taxable income. And there is before tax and after tax income, as Mr. and Mrs. Kerry-Heinz's accountants undoubtedly know. Regarding your expertise due to class time. As VP candidate Edwards would tell you while channeling a preborn, experts make mistakes all the time. As you may know, LBJ started the taxing of social security benefits. And anyway you slice it, paying taxes on any income for any reason that you already have paid taxes on, is not right. Even your third cousin knows that. jerry - Dems don't have sabres. However, they will complain very well. J. Moir - Can you give me a link on the ROI for SS? I'd like to do mine. Thanks. CA - You keep ignoring that the more you pay in, the more you get back, so raising the income level above $87,900 does nothing for SS, unless you wish to give the payees at the high end less of their money back. Is that your plan? Locutor - No. People aren't having enough children. That's the problem we are having with SS. But that has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. The issue there is simply a cultural thing. What we need is to define marriage as contract, and let government enforce the contract, when needed. "Marriage" should be sanctioned by a church, with some doing so, and some not. The problem is that those denominations who oppose it feel that the government will force them to allow/recognize gay marriages.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    Adept H - My apologies. I'll have to wait for another chance to point out the error of your ways. I'm sure it won't be long. ;-) Alan S - That post was for you! J.Mohr - See, I know how to spell your name. Guess this is my mea cupla post.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#41)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    Apology accepted PPJ, though I really should point out you've made the same error in your haste to "point out the error of my ways" at least twice in the last couple of days. Perhaps we can believe you will be more thoughtful in the future. Perhaps.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 10:38:44 AM EST
    PPJ wrote: "et al - If SS is such a great deal, why aren't members of Congress in it?" Congress is covered by Social Security. Here's the answer, straight from the Social Security administration's web site:
    All Federal employees hired after 1983 are covered by Social Security and must pay Social Security taxes. Included in this group are employees with previous Federal service (other than rehired annuitants) if their break in service was more than 365 days. Certain people already employed by the Federal Government were also covered under Social Security beginning in 1984. These employees include: - Legislative branch employees who were not covered by the Civil Service Retirement System on December 31, 1983; - The President, the Vice President, and all Members of Congress; - Sitting Federal judges; and - Most political appointees, including non-career members of the senior executive service.
    Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, big guy.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    Our senators are paid their salaries for the rest of their life, who needs SS when they are guaranteed a high 6 figure salary until death?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    The primary problem with SS is that people are living longer than they were 70, 60- 50, 40, 30 years ago. Life expectancy at the creation of SS was 59 years old, so if you retire at 65, you get -6 years of benefits. for the past 7 decades life expectancy has risen incrementally and dramatically when considering it in its totality (77.1 years for people born today). So a system that was designed to provide a couple of years of benefits is providing 10+ years of security. It does not take a mathematican to figure out that the increases in payroll tax have not kept up with increased life expectancy. If the average person lived to be 67 in 1950-1960 they rec'd 2 years of benefits if they retired at 65. 2 years of total benefits versus 10 years of total benefits is a 500% increase, no? The question is, how many people are healthy enough to work until 70, or 75? If the current average life span is 77.1, than shouldn't people work until 70 or 75 as they did comparatively speaking to the original version? The problem is that we see 200 billion going to Iraq, 100 billion in Afghanistan, 500 billion to defense, etc, yet we cannot provide SECURITY for our citizens? If people could work until their deathbed in the 30's through the 60's, (based on life expectancy) why are we not doing that now? Privatization and "ownership society" are superlatively laden beautiful terms, but in 50 years they will be seen as a considerable failure.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - Well, I learned something. But.... Hey, Big Guy yourself. And after that half truth you just posted, I'd hide my name also. Here are the facts: "if eligible by age and years of service, they may receive a retirement annuity like other federal employees. Annuities are calculated by a formula using their highest three years of salary, years of service and an accrual rate. As for other federal retirees, the annuities of Members of Congress are less than the salary they received while in office. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), a Member of Congress who retired at age 50, with 20 years of service would receive 42.5 percent of salary from a Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuity. The annual salary of a Member of Congress in 2004 is $158,100." So, after 20 years they can retire on a retirement of about $64,000 a year that is funded by 9% per year of salary. Now that 9% is about $14,400 a year, or $284,400 over the 20 years. "When Federal employees and their employing agencies make contributions to the CSRDF, such money is deposited in the general fund and a government security of equal value is created and credited to the CSRDF. These securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government and have the same standing as U.S. Savings Bonds. When funds are needed to pay retirement benefits, securities credited to the CSRDF are converted to cash with money from the general fund." So, the ROI is actually tax payer dollars, not actual securities. What this means in that after`about 4 and a half years, their contributition is gone, and they are being paid directly from new contributitions and taxpayer dollars. Hey folks! We've been missing out! This is Social Security on steriods! Sounds real sweet to me.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#47)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    Our senators are paid their salaries for the rest of their life, I don't think so.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    The problem is that we see 200 billion going to Iraq, 100 billion in Afghanistan, 500 billion to defense, etc, yet we cannot provide SECURITY for our citizens?
    Right on J, that sums up my position. I've said before, I don't really give a rats arse about SS, I don't expect to see a dime. I lump it in the with the FICA and income tax as lost money. But saying we don't have the money to take care of old people, when obscene amounts of money get flushed down the drain everyday, it makes my blood boil.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#49)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:39:25 AM EST
    PPJ, that was me up there. Don't know why my name didn't post. As for half-truths, you asserted that members of Congress "aren't in" Social Security. I posted the answer to your question directly from the SS website and included a link. Where's the "half truth"?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#51)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    PPJ, you also forgot to mention that members of Congress pay 8 percent of their salaries into the civil service retirement system in addition to their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll taxes on the first $87k they earn.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    My apolgies Quaker: Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension. The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909 a month. PPJ - I know, I don't have an answer, but the fact remains that quality of life and life expectancy upon its creation was distinctly different. Fact is we are paying 5 times as many benefits than we were 30 years ago, and that is where something has to give...

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    Poker Player - Thanks for getting my name correct. Don't sweat it. I am an identical twin and spent half my life being identified as my brother. Mohr is not an easily remembered spelling and I can remember calling the bar to see if I passed. They originally said no. They still looked up the wrong spelling after I gave it to the twice. The ROI on SS is actually based upon the interest accrued on the securities paid into the trust fund. This is an important figure because of the "claw back" provision of the plan. Individuals will in effect repay the government from their private account. The pay back will be based on amount contributed and interest consisted with government bond interest. CBO estimates this as 3.3%. Thus their is a benefit to the private account only to the extent that ROI exceeds the return on government securities. Interest is also paid on moneys deposited in the trust account. The Washington Post has an article on it.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    JL - I agree something has to give. Re the Congessional Plan: The provisions are about the same as the now out of fashion, company funded plans, except most of those you had to be age 55, and it did take 5 years to vest. And the max payout is 50% of the best year of the last 5, and there is no COLA. So the CRS is vastly superior to any private plan I have ever seen. Quaker - No, they pay 9%. And since I agreed with Dearest No Name (you) that they are in the system, I saw no reason to pursue it. The half truth is that they aren't mentioning the other plan, which is a wonderful plan, and almost 100% tax payer funded. J Mohr - Thanks, but I was looking for how they figure current ROI. As for the future, if everything is up for grabs, then the "clawback" may, or may not, apply. If it does then the plan doesn't work, because long term investment depends on ups and downs,

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    Poker Player - ROI would be derived the same way, i.e. the weighted average the interest on the government bonds held by the trust fund versus total assets. On the other hand, the ROI to the individual could be calculated by total individual contribution versus benefits promised by the current system. The claw back provision (there ought to be a better way of saying it)will require a comparison the any proposed benefit fund against the return currently received by investment in the trust fund. This is information that would be useful to anyone attempting to decide between using the private account or remaining in SS. Unfrotunately, I spent enough time in the federal government to know that current ROI is there some where but that it will take a lot of effort to find. Whatever is done with SS requires that the government determine the data relevant to making an informed decision and make sure that it is available. My usual concern is that whether a Democratic or Republican administration is involved, data determined relevant will be skewed advancing the party in power's policy objective.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    These to issues are both DOA. It is window dressing to cover up the lack of new issue to tackle in the next four years since everything else important to the nation would be admiting a previous Republican mistake or a Democratic truth. Meanwhile, Servicing the Debt is our third largest budget item and Medicaid may really be in a crises -
    Medical bills spark 46% of U.S. personal bankruptcies: study Last Updated Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:05:49 EST CBC News BOSTON - Nearly half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by big medical bills racked up because of serious illnesses or accidents, a Harvard University study suggests.


    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    PPJ wrote: No, they pay 9%. And since I agreed with Dearest No Name (you) that they are in the system, I saw no reason to pursue it. Perhaps so. I got my figure from the link you provided which reads:
    CSRS-covered Members of Congress presently contribute 8.0 percent of total salary to CSRDF, and FERS-covered Members contribute 1.3 percent. This is in addition to the 6.2 percent of the first $87,900 of salary they all pay to Social Security.
    PPJ continued: "The half truth is that they aren't mentioning the other plan, which is a wonderful plan, and almost 100% tax payer funded." Then as long as we're correcting the record, let's not neglect to mention that this plan isn't limited to members of Congress. It's available to all federal employees. It's part of their compensation package.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#58)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    Heck. Me again in the post above.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    Quaker - You can't remember to type your moniker and I can't read. .... 8% it is. I assume you have read "The Man Who Would Be King?" And a very nice plan it is. No matter who does it, err, get's it. Jim Hurt - The article may be correct, but I have trouble with articles that end with "suggests." That is a weasle word. J.Mohr - Sounds like the bureaucrats are trying to kill it. But forget about the changes. How do they calculate ROI and payout, now?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    J Mohr - The WH says the clawback info is not true.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    Poker Player - Thanks for the reference. Assuming that this is how it works out, that will be one issue resolved. President Bush needs to get more detailed. At the current time, we can only look at past plans that head in this direction and guess at the specifics. AH, a lot of fertile ground for discussion as the new details come out.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    No dice, CA. Raising the cap on SS simply means more redistribution coming from fewer workers. One more time, if you have a better idea, now's the time. Who's progressive now?

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    Ace - Are you singing.... "Who's sorry now?....." J Mohr - Yes. He needs to be putting out details, otherwise his opposition will do it for him.

    Re: Open Thread: SOTU (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:14:00 AM EST
    DA - No matter what you say, the facts remain. It is absolute nonsense to pay any FIT on income that you have already paid FIT on. What that is, is a de facto means testing of Social Security income. Something that the government says will never happen, when, in fact, it is happening now. Evidently the training you spoke of didn't include critical thinking and logic 101. Anyone can paint by the numbers. ;-)

    Open Thread: SOTU | 61 comments (61 topical)