Why all the lying about Social Security? - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-09-2005, 09:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/9/2005 10:21 PM

Isn't the really and truly, honest to goodness, no kidding, forget partisan crap, 'real' problem that the rate of increase in retirees is approaching or exceeding the rate of new workers entering employment? When there were a large numer of workers per retiree paying pensions was easy and cost very little. Gov got excited and increased and expanded benefits, assuming constant ratio of retiree to worker.

Then the baby boomer generation shlepped its way through life and the population that followed did not increase at a rate sufficient to meet the baby boomer cohort when that lump begins retiring in the next few years.

When projecting non-linear curves, the rate of teh curve can send it into wildly different trajectories. Those various curves are based on assumptions. Some combinations are more or less optimistic and some are more or less pessimistic. None of them are going to be exact. Their various error rates affect people's lives. So a mistake or innaccuracy or unpredictability of a small difference in the exponential curve can have huge impacts very quickly. Not to mention intentional selection of parameters to make some political point or other. Not that anybody would od that, mind you.

What did Moynihan support and why?

What did Breaux support and why?

Folks who are partisans about this need to wonder why some folks from both sides agreed on a solution that is now a full-fledged political food fight.

Think, people. Don't just react because your Demopublican boss tells you something. Use that hatrack you're carrying on your neck for something new.
....And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why there is lying about SS. If there is lying about SS (and there most assuredly is), it is because there is political special interest in keeping the pig alive even though it was stabbed through the heart decades ago by theveing politicians. Those politicians then labeled the system "insurance" so as not to have to explain where the money went. We, or some, bought it. Some did not.

I believe the lying is coming from both sides.....THEY ARE COVERING THIER COLLECTIVE EQUUS ASINUS'!


that's my storey and i'm stickin' to it.

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 08:04 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?


Social Security not in crisis, most say
Americans not embracing big changes, surveys showBy Richard Morin and Dale Russakoff

Updated: 12:17 a.m. ET Feb. 10, 2005Most Americans are certain Social Security will go bankrupt but are not ready to embrace changes that would shore up the system's finances, according to two surveys by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Seven in 10 Americans agree with President Bush that Social Security eventually will go bankrupt if Congress fails to act, though most predict that the system will not do so for at least two decades. Yet while Bush has warned of a crisis in Social Security, barely one in four Americans believes that a crisis exists.

More broadly, the polls raise serious doubts about whether Americans are willing to make the choices necessary to fix the system's financial problems. Solid majorities reject both increases in payroll taxes and decreases in retirement benefits, except for the wealthy. Experts agree that without new revenue coming in or less flowing out as benefits -- or both -- the Social Security system will not be able to pay all its promised benefits, perhaps as early as 2042.

Other recent samplings of public opinion have gauged support for Bush's restructuring plan and other proposals for change, but these polls sought to measure what people knew about Social Security and how misinformation about the program is shaping policy preferences. The polls also tested how subtle changes in the way proposed changes are described can produce major shifts in public opinion.

A majority supports the president's proposal to allow Americans to invest part of their Social Security contributions in stocks or bonds, although opinions on this and other aspects of the president's plan frequently are weakly held and easily moved.

For example, Jerry Traylor, 58, a retired government worker who lives in Newell, Ala., said he supports Bush's proposal for personal accounts, asserting that "a person would have more interest in their own money and their future in retirement if they could invest in stocks."

But like nearly half of those surveyed, Traylor wrongly believed that the costs of creating personal accounts would be negligible. Told that the Bush administration estimates the government initially would have to borrow more than $700 billion to set up such a system, he was incredulous. "That seems very excessive," Traylor said. "I would be less inclined to favor it if it costs that much. That much money could serve a lot of good purposes."

That cost estimate proved to be the most effective of four arguments against Bush's proposal tested in the polls. While 56 percent said they support a plan for individual investment accounts, more than half of those said they would be less likely to do so after hearing the estimate. More than four in 10 supporters wavered when they heard that personal accounts would not, by themselves, reduce the financial problems facing Social Security.

Those opposed to Bush's plan were consistently more resistant to changing their view -- about one in four did -- when confronted with four arguments supporting his proposal.

Taken together, the polls found that the debate over Social Security reflects the sharp divisions of the presidential campaign, and that Bush enters the fight without a clear mandate on the issue. The surveys also found serious misunderstandings about Social Security that could be exploited by either side to shape opinion as the debate evolves.

Facts vs. beliefs


Americans badly underestimate the share of the federal budget spent on Social Security, and most incorrectly believe that retirees, on average, receive less in benefits than they contributed to the system. And about half of those who support the president's plan incorrectly believe it would protect people from losing retirement money they invested from their personal account.

Perhaps most significant, about seven in 10 Americans believe that the cost of living has been rising faster than wages over the past 20 years, although the reverse is true. This belief probably shapes policy preferences: The same percentage wants to peg initial Social Security benefits to the cost of living, as Bush reportedly wants, instead of the current formula, which pegs them to wage increases. That change would result in significantly lower guaranteed benefits for future generations, according to both supporters and opponents.

Danny Burke, 49, a laid-off maintenance mechanic in Granite City, Ill., who said he struggles to make ends meet, believes based on experience that prices are rising much faster than wages. "Just go to the grocery store and look at a can of corn," he said. "I used to get four for a dollar; now it's five for $2."

But Robert Mitchell, 40, who owns a carpet-cleaning business in Nixa, Mo., correctly said wages rise faster, also based on what he sees. "My parents worked like dogs, and we had one TV and two old cars. Now every person I know has two brand-new cars and a plasma TV," he said.

At the same time, the polls found that the public has quickly become informed on many key elements of the Bush plan to create individual investment accounts.

Most already know that Bush's changes would exempt those 55 and older, and people polled understand that the accounts would be protected from use by government. They also know the plan would limit investments to a few relatively safe stock and bond funds.

To measure knowledge about Social Security and the Bush plan, The Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard conducted two national telephone surveys. The first poll of 1,236 randomly selected adults was conducted Feb. 3 to 6 and measured what people knew about Social Security and their attitudes toward restructuring.

The second survey, of 1,231 randomly selected adults conducted Feb. 4 to 6, focused on what people initially have learned about the Bush plan. Both surveys have margins of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The polls suggest that the debate over Social Security restructuring is a battle of words -- but not necessarily the words the administration has worried about.

Americans seem not to change their views when the president's plan is characterized as a "private" rather than a "personal" investment account -- a change from earlier studies, in which the use of "private accounts" or "privatization" drove down support. Either way, a modest majority favored the proposal, the survey found.

Far more sensitive was the characterization of the way a restructuring would include a provision to recalculate initial benefits for retirees. Opposition rose from 68 percent when this change was characterized as "reducing the rate of growth in benefits" to 86 percent when described as "cutting guaranteed benefits." Both phrases accurately describe what would happen.

Deep divisions
The polls also revealed that the fault lines of the presidential campaign are resurfacing in the Social Security debate. Those surveyed split down the middle on whether they trusted Democrats or Republicans to lead on Social Security. And they were almost equally divided on the values that lie at the heart of the current debate -- self-reliance vs. the government's obligation to protect its citizens.

Half said the overriding value is having a guaranteed minimum standard of living in retirement, even if that means the government decides how all Social Security taxes are invested. Nearly as many said the system should above all allow Americans to invest a portion of Social Security taxes as they wish, even if they end up taking risks that hurt them financially.

Six in 10 Democrats valued the guaranteed standard of living, while six in 10 Republicans valued the freedom to invest on their own. Seniors valued the minimum standard of living by 57 percent to 32 percent. Those younger than 40 valued the right to invest on their own by 53 percent to 42 percent.

Attitudes of those older than 55 often differed significantly from those of younger Americans, with strikingly little variation among those 18 to 55. For example, people younger than 55 are about twice as likely to say the system is in crisis than older adults. They are twice as likely as older people to say they expect to receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system.

"I'm expecting to live on my own savings. I'm going to prepare for the worst so I don't get in trouble," said Sarah Kirby, 19, a political science and history major at Marquette University who said she believes Social Security is "outdated" because it did not anticipate the longevity of today's seniors.

Benjamin Palmer, 23, general manager of a Pizza Hut in New Brighton, Pa., also said he expects Social Security to run out before he retires. "Who cares?" Palmer said of the risk involved in stock investments. "People my age have no guarantee now that Social Security will be there for us. So it would be more than we've got now."

Stephen Davis, 55, a metal fabricator who lives in Forney, Tex., disagrees with Bush's proposal, even though he voted for him.

'Let the fleecing begin'
"I think it's dangerous, because in the stock market the amount of risk involved is just too great," Davis said. "It's kind of like, let the fleecing begin, benefiting stock insiders, stockbrokers, large corporations."

The survey also suggests that Bush begins the fight over Social Security without a majority of Americans backing him. One in five wants him to lead the way on Social Security, while a similar proportion has more confidence in congressional Republicans. More than four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say they trust congressional Democrats on the issue. Taken together, the findings suggest that about half want Democrats to handle this issue, while about half have more confidence in Republicans.

Although half of all retirees say Social Security is their major source of income, few younger Americans say they plan to rely on the system to be anything more than a supplement to their retirement incomes.

More than two-thirds of the country knows that payroll taxes paid into the Social Security trust fund are lent to the federal government and spent on other programs. But more than six in 10 of these doubt that the federal government will ever pay that money back -- one big reason the system is now in trouble, a lopsided majority says.

"Pay it back? The government?" said Margaret Abrams, 59, who owns a plumbing company in Somerville, Mass. "They're never going to pay it back. It's not on the list."

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #93 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 09:57 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/9/2005 11:11 PM

Come on you two are the same guy, right?

It is all in the models, boys and girls. If you choose to believe the Clinton model, that's okay with me. If you choose to believe the Bush model, that's okay with me. I don't think either are 'lying'. I think they cherry-pick assumptions. True believers believe what they love and hate what they disbelieve.

Why not take the time to read Moynihan? You can spit at Bush every few minutes, it's oookay. I doubt hissing and spitting require deep thought so it shouldn't disturb you overly much to read what some old dead guy wrote.

After that, read about Chile. I'll bring you guys over to my side. Pssst, wanna buy some free enterprise?
It appears that Bot has purchased more gas for his trolling motor. First, he had one opinion about SS--it ought to be killed, period. Now, suddenly, he wants to scold others who, he alleges, have not read the estimable Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., Heaven).

The thread, of course, is about the Bush plan, and why it is rife with lies. Touchy area for any Bush sycophant.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #94 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 01:14 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?


Hannity, Bennett misrepresented success of retirement systems in Texas, Chile

http:\\www.mediamatters.org

In an attempt to advance the Bush administration's plan to partially privatize Social Security, FOX News host Sean Hannity and nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett made false and misleading claims about the purported success of privatized retirement systems in Galveston, Texas, and Chile. In fact, in each case, the privatized systems have provided lower retirement benefits for low- and middle-income workers than the guaranteed benefits in the systems that they replaced.

From the February 8 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes:

BENNETT: People at all levels of the economy in Chile have profited from this plan.

[...]

HANNITY: The same demonization [of privatization] was used in Chile. Only 25 percent of the population got involved originally. Now 95 percent want the private accounts because they work.

[...]

HANNITY: I guess what's frustrating to me is that it seems that what people thought were good ideas, innovative ideas -- Galveston, Texas, let me give you this quick model, Bill [Bennett]. They opted out of the system of Social Security in 1982 because of a loophole. That person that makes $51,000 a year, that paid 6 percent in their private system is going to get nearly $4,000 a month. The average Social Security recipient will only get $1,500 a month.

In Chile, they get 10 percent across the board versus the 1 percent [the rate of return is assumed to be 3 percent, according to the 2003 Social Security Trustees report] in our government system. And yet there's a close-mindedness, even though a 25-year track record has been set with two separate examples.

Galveston and two other Texas counties opted out of the U.S. Social Security system in 1981 (which states and localities could do before the law was changed in 1983), creating a system of private annuities. But Hannity's claim that the "average Social Security recipient" would benefit from the system implemented in Galveston is contradicted by a 1999 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled "Social Security Reform: Experience of the Alternate Plans in Texas," which ran a simulation to compare what a worker would receive under the Galveston and current U.S. systems. According to the report, only higher-wage earners' benefits and initial disability benefits would increase under the Galveston plan, while all other groups would receive lower benefits than under the current U.S.4 system.

From the 1999 GAO report:

In general, we found that certain features of Social Security, such as the progressive benefit formula and the allowance for spousal benefits, are important factors in providing larger benefits than the Alternate Plans for low-wage earners, single-earner couples, and individuals with dependents. ... Many median-wage earners in our simulations, while initially receiving higher benefits under the Alternate Plans, would also have received larger benefits under Social Security after between 4 and 12 years after retirement, because Social Security benefits are indexed for inflation. The Alternate Plans provide larger benefits for higher-wage workers than Social Security would, but in some cases, such as when spousal benefits are involved, Social Security benefits could also eventually exceed those of the Alternate Plans. Even Social Security's cost-of-living adjustment feature would not lift higher earners' benefits beyond those of the Alternate Plan participants until very late in retirement. Survivor benefits often would be greater under Social Security than under the Alternate Plans, especially when a worker died at a relatively young age and had dependent children. With regard to disability benefits, all workers in our simulations would receive higher initial benefits under the Alternate Plans. ... Although the presence of dependents would narrow the difference somewhat between Social Security and the Alternate Plans in initial disability benefits, the Alternate Plans' initial disability benefits would still likely exceed those from Social Security because of the added value of the annuity.

And there are other major problems with the Galveston system. As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has noted, Galveston "contracted for a fixed-income annuity at an average annual rate of 8.6 percent. But there's no way the U.S. economy could live with interest rates that high over the long term; Galveston's example can't be generalized to the entire nation." Further, as Brookings Institution senior fellow Henry Aaron noted in his testimony to the Senate Committee on the Budget on January 19, 1999, in addition to lowered benefits for most workers, the Galveston plan "exposes all workers to risks that no social insurance plan should countenance," while failing to provide inflation protection or guaranteed annuities for spouses and benefits for divorced spouses. Aaron also noted that the Galveston system could not feasibly be translated to America as a whole: "Those who withdraw from Social Security run away from a burden that the nation cannot escape -- specifically, the obligation to pay off the unfunded liability -- leav[ing] that burden for those who remain under Social Security to pay."

Similarly, Chile's system of private accounts has been less effective for poor and middle-class workers than the social security system that preceded it. While the Chilean program does earn "an average 10 percent annual return on investments" according to a January 27 New York Times report, Hannity's claim that such a return is received "across the board" is misleading, and Bennett's assertion that "[p]eople at all levels of the economy in Chile have profited from this plan" is false. As the Times article noted, "many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts -- burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment -- are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system." Further, many poor Chileans' "contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month," and others who "earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally -- remain outside the system altogether." As Ricardo Solari, Chile's minister of labor and social security, noted to the Times, "'it is absolutely impossible to think that a system of this nature is going to resolve the income needs of Chileans when they reach old age.'''

Further, Hannity's claim that "95 percent [of Chileans] want the private accounts because they work" contradicts the assessment of a Chilean "government official who specializes in pension issues." As the Times reported:

''What we have is a system that is good for Chile but bad for most Chileans,'' said a government official who specializes in pension issues and who spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from corporate interests. "If people really had freedom of choice, 90 percent of them would opt to go back to the old system."

— A.S.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #95 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Joe - this article by Conason describes the deals made under the Reagan admin that you spoke of, that preceded the Monyihan commission under Clinton. As can be seen, prepartion for the Baby Boomer retirement has been going on for over 20 years. Some "crisis".


Bush Talks Trash About U.S. Bonds
by Joe Conason


For at least five years, George W. Bush has been muttering about his determination to "reform" Social Security, but he may never get around to articulating a specific plan until the question is moot. The sketchy notions floated by the White House sound so unappealing that even legislators of the President’s own party are backing away from his campaign against the nation’s great social-insurance system.

It’s easy to measure how rapidly the Social Security scheme is sinking when Mr. Bush makes a promotional trip to Montana, as he did last week, and is still unable to persuade either of the state’s Senators, Democrat or Republican, to sign on.

Hesitation among politicians of both parties is understandable, because this deal stinks so badly. Essentially, the President and his advisors want the U.S. government to borrow additional trillions of dollars to create a system of private investments that will impose new risks and costs, but won’t compensate for huge benefit cuts. The only way to sell the privatization plan is to withhold the unappetizing details and try to scare everyone into going along. That strategy had worked perfectly when the President decided to push us into war with Iraq, and he must have felt confident that the same rhetorical bullying would work again.

In this instance, the bogus threat conjured by Mr. Bush and his conservative supporters is the U.S. government’s abandonment of its commitment to generations of workers who paid taxes into the Social Security system. They tell us that the system is going bankrupt, that the system is "flat broke"—by which they mean that the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund are worthless. The catch phrase they use is "worthless I.O.U.’s."

This is an argument that can be convincing only to someone who has no idea how government is financed every day—which is to say, someone who doesn’t know that governments subsist on borrowing, just like corporations and families, and they always have. The scale is different, but the principle remains the same. If Treasury bonds are indeed "worthless," then the government itself must be on the verge of collapse.

This scare-the-rubes rhetoric is what makes the President’s Social Security scheme so darkly comical. He is talking down the same bonds that would have to be marketed to pay for his plan’s transition costs. So while he warns us that those old bonds held by the trust fund are worthless, he is simultaneously proposing to sell trillions of dollars more in new bonds to finance his privatization plan. Questioning the soundness of government securities is normal in an underdeveloped country, but it is a disgrace to hear the President raise such questions about the government of the United States, which has never defaulted on a financial obligation. Until this administration came to power and emptied the cookie jar, U.S. Treasury bonds were universally regarded as the most reliable investment on earth. Now, as the dollar sinks and the deficits explode, nobody is quite so certain about that traditional repository of value.

Actually, all the blather about "worthless" Treasury bonds sounds particularly juvenile and irresponsible at a time when, thanks to the President’s tax cuts, we are increasingly dependent on foreign lenders in places like China and Japan. Why would anybody buy a bond from him?

Back then, the government raised FICA taxes (and trimmed future Social Security benefits) in the 1983 agreement that set up the Social Security trust fund. Blessed by those twin Republican idols, Alan Greenspan and the late Ronald Reagan, the historic agreement guaranteed that the Treasury bonds purchased with those taxes would be redeemed when needed to pay benefits.

In the years since then, the U.S. government has borrowed those tax payments from the Social Security trust fund to cover current expenses, in return for special Treasury bonds. Proceeds of those bonds are used daily for government expenses (including the redemption of bonds held by wealthy investors). Most notably, those borrowings have lately subsidized the cost of Mr. Bush’s enormous and regressive tax cuts.

Workers paying higher FICA taxes over the past two decades have lent the government that money, trusting that the bonds purchased by the trust fund are worth every cent of their face value. Now they hear the President hint that the Treasury bonds bought on their behalf are about as valuable as Confederate currency.

Are the Republicans really saying those bonds, which will amount to nearly $4 trillion by 2018, should be deemed invalid? Would the Republicans permit the U.S. government to default on its obligations to its own citizens? Would they transform that commitment into a swindle that ripped off average taxpayers and workers to enrich the very richest?

The Democrats standing united to protect Social Security should demand forthright answers, and they should enunciate their own response loudly: There is no reason, and no chance, that we will default on our obligations.

You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #96 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 01:55 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Kirk--thanks for this piece by Conason. I thought that the changes to prepare for the boomers' retirement started in the Reagan years and that Greenspan was part of the group, but then I started to have doubts and wondered whether my CRS disease (Can't Remember S**t) was kicking in. Conason does a nice job of laying out the inherent contradictions in the Bush plan--on the one hand, gov't bonds are worthless; on the other, let's sell some more to pay for the $2 trillion transition cost. To recall a phrase from the past--VOODOO ECONOMICS.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #97 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 06:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 2/10/2005 11:57 AM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/9/2005 11:11 PM

Come on you two are the same guy, right?

It is all in the models, boys and girls. If you choose to believe the Clinton model, that's okay with me. If you choose to believe the Bush model, that's okay with me. I don't think either are 'lying'. I think they cherry-pick assumptions. True believers believe what they love and hate what they disbelieve.

Why not take the time to read Moynihan? You can spit at Bush every few minutes, it's oookay. I doubt hissing and spitting require deep thought so it shouldn't disturb you overly much to read what some old dead guy wrote.

After that, read about Chile. I'll bring you guys over to my side. Pssst, wanna buy some free enterprise?
It appears that Bot has purchased more gas for his trolling motor. First, he had one opinion about SS--it ought to be killed, period. Now, suddenly, he wants to scold others who, he alleges, have not read the estimable Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., Heaven).

The thread, of course, is about the Bush plan, and why it is rife with lies. Touchy area for any Bush sycophant.

Joe B.
Kirk lite.

I think it ought to be killed out-right. I have fallback positions. A fool or a zealot is intransigent. You know the type: Partisan people who believe that things should always be as they were or are. Unwilling to risk change. Unwilling to risk new ideas.

Take SS. Who are the conservatives on that issue? The people who want to change it or people who want to maintain the status quo?

Don't want to read Moynihan? Fine with me. Don't. Just stick with what you know to be true. That's the spirit.
Botnst is offline  
post #98 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 06:26 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

What difference do labels make? We have a system that works, that despite the lies is obviously solvent, and simply means some old fashioned good management practices. Your alternative is to kill it, despite the fact this is the system that supports the disabled, the elderly and widows and orphans of this country. Go find something else to jack with that doesn't fuck over the weak and powerless.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #99 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 08:09 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/10/2005 8:18 PM

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 2/10/2005 11:57 AM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/9/2005 11:11 PM

Come on you two are the same guy, right?

It is all in the models, boys and girls. If you choose to believe the Clinton model, that's okay with me. If you choose to believe the Bush model, that's okay with me. I don't think either are 'lying'. I think they cherry-pick assumptions. True believers believe what they love and hate what they disbelieve.

Why not take the time to read Moynihan? You can spit at Bush every few minutes, it's oookay. I doubt hissing and spitting require deep thought so it shouldn't disturb you overly much to read what some old dead guy wrote.

After that, read about Chile. I'll bring you guys over to my side. Pssst, wanna buy some free enterprise?
It appears that Bot has purchased more gas for his trolling motor. First, he had one opinion about SS--it ought to be killed, period. Now, suddenly, he wants to scold others who, he alleges, have not read the estimable Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., Heaven).

The thread, of course, is about the Bush plan, and why it is rife with lies. Touchy area for any Bush sycophant.

Joe B.
Kirk lite.

I think it ought to be killed out-right. I have fallback positions. A fool or a zealot is intransigent. You know the type: Partisan people who believe that things should always be as they were or are. Unwilling to risk change. Unwilling to risk new ideas.

Take SS. Who are the conservatives on that issue? The people who want to change it or people who want to maintain the status quo?

Don't want to read Moynihan? Fine with me. Don't. Just stick with what you know to be true. That's the spirit.
Tom Delay lite. Step one would be not to make false assumptions. I have read Moynihan, though not lately on the S.S. stuff. Have found him an original thinker, out of the mold for sure. I particularly liked DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN, a piece which could hardly be called a leftist treatise. I am open to ideas on S.S. that would correct the distant problem of insolvency; Bush's plan will not do that. The thread is about the lies told about S.S., and on that score, I am apparently more conversant than you on the subject of what is true.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #100 of 166 (permalink) Old 02-10-2005, 08:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Why all the lying about Social Security?

No doubt about it. Kirk and Kirk-Lite know the truth. Being the bearer of truth is an awesome burden, from which you do not shrink.

Unfortunately, I don't know the truth. All I know is what I understand of the facts that I have evaluated. From those data I assume there is some sort of truth out there, a vague shape seen through a glass, darkly. By asking questions I think eventually I may encircle truth, or at least gain a variety of perspectives on it. If only I knew the truth, I would no longer have to ask, I'd just know.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome