State of the Union

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:11 pm

So far I am taken by how everyone is standing at the start of the speech. Also I see some people have blu stain on their finger. I will be curious if the lefties applaud with as little vigor as they have done in the past.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:14 pm

Nope to the applause. Seems the left side of the aisle doesn't like adding 2.3 million jobs or the highest rate of home ownership ever.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:17 pm

Hmmm...left side doesn't seem much taken with reining in junk lawsuits or reforming the health care system.
I give up.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:35 pm

Well well, the left side finally stood up and applauded over the not growing of body parts for sale.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:52 pm

Interesting, a message to the Iranian people that we stand by you. I'm wondering what Bush knows. Little hints like somewhere some reporter wrote that we have special ops teams in Iran supposedly scoping out where Irans nuclear facilities are. Could it be more likely that we are contacting nascent freedom rights groups?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:03 pm

Most touching moment is when the mother of a fallen marine hugs a Iraqi woman who voted in Iraq. speak about feelings.
Of course those of you who don't watch state of the union speechs...miss out on such things.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:07 pm

What, you think this is your personal blog?

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:09 pm

i watched it woody... on fox of all things.

;-0

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:10 pm

The part that I was most interested in was the "high support of innovative new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, etc" Does he really think we can become independent in terms of transportation? Currently, from what I have heard, hydrogen fuel cells have no hope because it is more expensive energy-wise to have it than, say, electric cars.

Another thing he said was to end the conflict between Palestine and Israel. Is he crazy??? That conflict has been going for thousands of years as described even in the Bible. I don't want to get all superstitious, but Bible prophesies say that when peace actually DOES occur between Israel and Palestine, a sequence of events leading to... well, u all know what I am talking about. Does Bush REALLY want to stimulate that?

I liked his proposals on social security. My AP US History teacher is a Democrat, and he told us today(before the speech) his 3 prong idea of how to fix social security. Ironically, it seems these are some of the same ideas as president Bush(raise age to 70 years old for retirement because of longer lifespan, etc)

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:35 pm

You are being superstitious. Besides, its either peace or get wiped off the map. I don't think that choice is very hard

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:41 pm

I'll withhold any comments for after I've read a transcript.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:26 pm

Jesus Freak wrote:Another thing he said was to end the conflict between Palestine and Israel. Is he crazy??? That conflict has been going for thousands of years as described even in the Bible. I don't want to get all superstitious, but Bible prophesies say that when peace actually DOES occur between Israel and Palestine, a sequence of events leading to... well, u all know what I am talking about.

1) He may not necessarily believe what he's saying. He's just being diplomatic (something many here think he lacks) -- by speaking about ending the conflict, and by making enough concessions, he can either successfully end the conflict or demonstrate that one side in the conflict can no longer be reasoned with. By continually pushing in the "peace" direction, he can either make peace, or justify a harsh response to whichever side refuses.

2) Prophecy does not always take place in the way you expect... and even if it does, are you suggesting he should wait just to try to delay the fulfillment of the prophecy? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way...

Zoop! · Post by **Zoop!** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:38 pm

Jesus Freak wrote:Currently, from what I have heard, hydrogen fuel cells have no hope because it is more expensive energy-wise to have it than, say, electric cars.

Technology is always improving and becoming more efficient. I believe hydrogen fuel cells will overtake oil as a source of energy, though it may take several years. It will also get cheaper as demand increases--causing more hydrogen fuel stations to be built so that these stations number the same number of traditional gas stations. I'm not necessarily an economics guru, but if you give it time, it should work out.

And they said nobody would like air-conditioning in buildings.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:39 am

Ignoring content: That was the first speech from Bush where I think he delivered it at a presidential level. He didn't call us terrorists, or say that we need to protect human feces, or anything.

Itâ??s probably because there is a lot less pressure now then one year ago.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:12 pm

I listened to it live on BBC.

I can't believe he's thrown his weight behind a constitutional amemdment regarding gay marriage. If that passes, I'll know Americans really have gone insane.

Good to see Dubya tackling yet another thing which doesn't need attacking: your pension system, which, in point of fact will most definitely NOT be broke in 20 years, or even 40 years.

He must really think he has some political clout now. I really hope he comes to grief.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:29 pm

Someone else take this one; I'm getting tired of posting that pic.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:41 pm

I can't believe he's thrown his weight behind a constitutional amemdment regarding gay marriage. If that passes, I'll know Americans really have gone insane.

That's one opinion. Some would say it's insane to allow the minority to dictate to the majority. However, given that I couldn't care less if Adam and Steve get hitched, I'll move on.

Good to see Dubya tackling yet another thing which doesn't need attacking: your pension system, which, in point of fact will most definitely NOT be broke in 20 years, or even 40 years.

Please elaborate.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:25 pm

"Please elaborate."

Social Security isn't in dire need of overhaul. If left untouched, full benefits can be paid until either 2042 or 2052, after which, around 75% of benefits can be paid. Small changes can be made to either the tax, the benefits, or the retirement age to extend this even further(to get past the baby boomer crunch).

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:18 pm

Jeff, you don't particularly paint a rosy picture.

Thirty seven years isn't as far off as it sounds. I personally don't relish the idea of taking a 25% hit or working another five years when I plan to retire. SS will have to be retooled sooner or later. But this debate is just beginning. I hope all ideas get due consideration (as opposed to partisan wrangling) whether changes are implimented in this presidential term or not.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:28 pm

Raising the retirement age is the most logical and fair anwser. Old people just wont hear it

One of the key reasons we are in this crunch is because of the increased life span of individuals.

SS was ment for when you just had a few years down the road, not 30.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:29 pm

Well, if Vander is correct, it would seem that no elaboration will be necessary. Vander adequately explained why the quoted portion of Mobius' post was incorrect.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:47 pm

Here are some facts.

Â· The cost of diverting social security funds to private accounts is estimated to be $2 trillion dollars. This money would be added to our national debt.

Â· If no changes are made to the social security system, it will continue to be able to pay out full benefits until either 2042 or 2052 (depending on the rate of economic growth in the country).

Â· After 2042, social security will be able to pay at least 70% of benefits, even if nothing is done to improve the fiscal condition of the program.

Â· Diverting social security funds to private accounts does not improve the fiscal condition of the social security program. The White House admits this.

Â· Under the current system, benefits are guaranteed to retirees as long as they live. In the Presidentâ??s plan, there is no guarantee that the funds in private accounts will increase or that the funds will last throughout retirement.

Â· In the Presidentâ??s plan, workers will not really â??ownâ?

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:50 pm

Wow, the whole talking points memo.

Source?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:15 pm

Kufyit, I don't pretend to know about each of those points but at least one very important one is a blatent lie. Not a mistake or confused interpretation...a hands down, all out, Lie!

"The social security system will begin to pay out more than it takes in by 2018. However, the system has built up a trust fund that can maintain current levels of benefits until at least 2042."

There is no trust fund, no fund of any kind with any liquid assets. There is a ledger in the capital of how much money there should be in the fund if the congress had put it aside as they want you to believe, but there is no money in a fund. Period.

Also something that stands out,
" Diverting social security funds to private accounts does not improve the fiscal condition of the social security program. The White House admits this. "

It's not supposed to improve the fiscal condition of the program but it definitely will improve the fiscal condition of the people who will own the accounts! So who are you concerned about? The people...or the lying bureaucrats program?

So I have to question the source of the whole list and don't believe a word of it until you straighten that out.

Finally, if they had put the money aside and invested it there would be no problem but they spent it. Do you know what one of things are they spend it on every year? A private account retirement system for themselves that pays out a whole lot better rate of return than the social security system they looted and it can be passed down to their children as a real asset unlike the system we are stuck with!

You can argue about the actual date it goes under all you want as if that somehow makes it all ok but if this was Enron's retirement fund you'd be screaming for the blood of the rich bastards in charge instead of asking me to bend over and take some more!

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:58 am

Trust Fund

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:11 am

Heh!
Ask any certified public accountant 'What do you call the accounting entry for an entity that holds it's own liabilities and refers to it as a trust fund?'
According to the governments own standards of accounting, the very laws they force us to abide by, it is considered illegal!

You can't give yourself a loan and then count the vapor-money as assets!!
But they do just that with the social security system we are forced to buy into!
And then, because they are the biggest bunch of two-faced liars and thieves this side of hell, they give themselves an exemption from the same social security system and with some of the actual money they take from us by the force of a gun or jail sentance they fund a normal, private retirement account for themselves.

Then when the scam is getting close to collapse you want to accept the solution of lower benefits, higher retirement age, pay more into it via higher taxes...

Just how far will you go to accept their BS ?!?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:30 am

In theory, Social Security is supposed to continue paying benefits after 2018 by drawing on the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund is supposed to provide sufficient funds to continue paying benefits until 2042, after which it will be exhausted. At that point, by law, Social Security benefits will have to be cut by 27%
However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. Any Social Security surpluses accumulated to date have been spent, leaving a trust fund that consists only of government bonds (IOU's) that will have to be repaid by taxpayers.

As the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2000 budget explained it:

"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures-- but only in a bookkeeping sense....They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."

From here

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:27 pm

I don't like the idea of working to an age that I might not live to see. It's kind of retarded to keep raising the retirement age based on "average" lifespan increases all the time. Some of us might not be that fortunate. If you can even call it that.

However, I guess the point is to retire when you have the money to retire and not have to worry abouti it. The best thing for some of us to do would be to create a seperate account that we deposite money in as we grow older and build our own retirement funds to go along with SS. There shouldn't be anything wrong with starting a second savings account that goes untouched from withdrawls and is earning interest throughout your life.

I've always detested the whole system anyways. You spend most of your life either in school or working and when you finally have time to do the things you enjoy the most...you're too old to even enjoy it anymore. Too me that just looks like a system that exhausts your resources and when you're on empty it throws you out with the rest of the garbage. Since we only get one shot at this thing it feels like a complete waste IMO. *cues Metallica - Unforgiven"

Yeah, I'm dramatic, so what?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:28 pm

This is interesting, Will. So our government is running a giant Ponzi scheme with its tax sponsored retirement system.

Doesn't the government have to disclose this fund in some kind of documentation somewhere? I imagine we don'y hear abou this much because both the Dems and the Reps want to keep open access to this extra little piggy bank.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:38 pm

Tyranny wrote:I don't like the idea of working to an age that I might not live to see. It's kind of retarded to keep raising the retirement age based on "average" lifespan increases all the time. Some of us might not be that fortunate.

But this is allready the case. The increase in average lifespan is exactly why the retirement age should be raised. If you die in your 40's as it is now, you don't get a retirement.

However there was a day when having 40 as a retirement age would have done just fine.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:35 pm

bash wrote:Source?

*crickets*

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:20 pm

dissent wrote:This is interesting, Will. So our government is running a giant Ponzi scheme with its tax sponsored retirement system.

In a word...yes.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:36 pm

dissent wrote:Doesn't the government have to disclose this fund in some kind of documentation somewhere? I imagine we don'y hear abou this much because both the Dems and the Reps want to keep open access to this extra little piggy bank.

it makes me wonder why people endlessly debate from their bi-partisan corners... something as important as MY money being fucked with by any politician outrages me. but instead, we call each other names and buy right into the dog and pony show.

clown shoes.

KlubMarcus · Post by **KlubMarcus** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:47 am

Social Security is nothing more than children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren.... paying for the mistakes of old people. Old people started SS, old people kept it going, old people did not reform SS, old people did not shut down SS. So why should government force young people to pay for old people?

Socialist InSecurity, a big government liberal idea run amuck. It is not enough to reform SS, I want to completely opt-out of it. I want the money I put into SS given back to me. I'll be nice and not ask for interest on top.