State of the Union

[Othello]

I simply feel so lucky not being an American.

[bloodzombie]

private accounts are way better than watching all my taxes payed out and seeing none of it myself. Hell cancel social security and allow me to invest that money. Make it a voluntary thing. Almost anything would be better.

!

classic case of ignoring the big picture.

Let's say they go ahead and do that.. cancel social security entirely... 20 years from now, how many old people will be living on the streets? then who ends up paying for them anyway? Why not just plan for it?

as far as seeing none of it yourself.. social security could easily be fixed by raising the taxable income for it a little bit... right now any income over $90,300 has no social security tax taken out of it. If you just raised that to like $92,000, that might be enough, and there'd be no real burden on anyone. People who make 100k per year aren't going to notice paying SS tax on an extra $1700, but it would add up t a substantial amount.

I really cannot figure out the reason that Bush wants to do this so badly. It's not to save social security, that's a crock of shit. I'm not totally against it, I'm waiting to see what the actual plan is first, but you can pretty much count on getting less than you would've gotten under the old plan.

[brookus]

I really cannot figure out the reason that Bush wants to do this so badly.

Not to state the obvious, but it will be great for the financial services industry.

llater,
Tony

[Epinephrine]

I really cannot figure out the reason that Bush wants to do this so badly.

The conservatives in America have opposed social security ever since it was proposed by FDR. They never liked it for whatever reasons, and they still don't like it. I guess it feels too 'socialist' for them.

[bloodzombie]

Not to state the obvious, but it will be great for the financial services industry.

llater,
Tony

Yeah, I thought of that too, but it seems hard to believe that he just really wants to give government handouts to stock brokers.

Maybe he's just thinking that all the extra money going into the market might boost his own portfolio (and all his rich friends). But most analysts agree that the market is overvalued right now so having everyone dump their retirement money into it seems like a bad idea.

[pv=nrt]

for people who would actually be using the private acounts, most would have more than 20 years to invest, I asume. Otherwise you don't have enough time to account for major failings in the economy/businesses. Even if the market is overvauled, it would be better in the long term becuase the market will even out. Over a 100 year span the market has averaged a 8% return. If we want I can pull out my finance book and we can do some calulations. But I don't see how this would hurt me to invest in an account where I get ROI? or one where I get no true growth and in fact will likely get less than what I am putting in. Of course it isn't guranteed but not much in life is. I would rather play the market, even a fund that follows the market indicators is better than nothing.

The only thing that matters is making sure those who are too late to start the investing can be cared for with their benefits deserving. Others, should be able to handle themselves. Of course this would work except that 99% of people don't know how to save/invest/handle money/be disciplined.


truthfully, I would prefer to make social security voluntary. I would rahter keep my taxed money and put it somewhere else. Of course I am also in favor of a sales tax instead of a income tax.

[Subjugation]

Yeah, I thought of that too, but it seems hard to believe that he just really wants to give government handouts to stock brokers.

Maybe he's just thinking that all the extra money going into the market might boost his own portfolio (and all his rich friends). But most analysts agree that the market is overvalued right now so having everyone dump their retirement money into it seems like a bad idea.

Interesting point about the market being overvalued.

Republicans look for any excuse to give relief or revenue to our multinationals. It's where their campaign contributions come from, it's where there investments and/or income is, it's also where the investments and/or income of their base are. I share your skepticism of the motivation behind this plan.

It's arguable that social security privatization might be good for the economy by pumping money into the financial investment services industry, and then in turn by investing funds into the market, but basically there's no guarantee that this system will actually pay off in the way Bush is promising, nor will it actually fix the system (which the administration has admitted will go bankrupt in the future, regardless), nor does anyone know how it will be paid for.

And although it's possible that it might be good for the economy, there's no way to say it will actually be good for the people who receive it. I mean, that's what this this should really be about: What is in the best interests of the elderly? Because if that's not what this is about, why isn't the argument instead: How can we best phase out Social Security?

The AARP (the most powerful lobby for the elderly) opposes it. That can't be easily dismissed. I mean, basically Bush is proposing gambling with the sole source of income for millions of American citizens.

[Vehicle]

[rant]My personal favorite thing is how he speant 4 minutes talking about the mother of dead soldier. If you're gonna say you're a wartime president, you can't be a pussy about it. You're not sympathetic, you just want support. People die during wars, it's your war, you're the reason the United States is in Iraq, so stop pandering to the audience, and grow the fuck up.[/rant, that i'm sure makes no sense to anyone but me]

[DoTheFandango]

Eh, Veh it does make sense, but you have to acknowledge your losses. If you just go into speeches with a, "Yeah people died, fuck off", mentality, no one will want you in office (not like the PEOPLE have a choice, but he needs support via Congress and the Senate)

[Tone]

690,000 US servicemen to land in Korea in case of war

SEOUL (AFP) Feb 04, 2005

The United States will deploy some 690,000 military personnel to help defend South Korea in case of an outbreak of war, South Korea's Defense Ministry said in a White Paper released Friday.
The 2004 Defence White Paper said more than 690,000 servicemen in augmentation forces would be brought in to the Korean peninsula in case of an all-out war, including the army, navy, air force, and marine corps units.

The augmentation forces would be dispatched to join more than 30,000 US troops already based here and some 650,000 South Korea forces.

Read More:

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050204070048.ntjfvqdy.html

[Saturn V]

here and some 650,000 South Korea forces.

It's actually 1,300,000 S. Korean forces. Half of them are cloaked.

[bloodzombie]

690,000 is roughly half of our entire military personnel. I don't think that is true at all.

[DoTheFandango]

That definitly does NOT sound right seeing as how we have around 150k in Iraq now.