PDA

View Full Version : Spin on the State of the Union


irishgrl
02-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Bush will try to mislead the American People with his twisted spin on his administration's spectacular mismanagement of our money our resources and our future:
Bush Misleads on various issues (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2005_sotu.pdf)

What a pimple on the arse of humanity..........

gldstwmn
02-02-2005, 01:33 PM
I'll watch tonight for as long as I can. They should have his meds cranked up pretty high.

SuzeQuze
02-02-2005, 01:56 PM
I'll watch tonight for as long as I can. They should have his meds cranked up pretty high.

I'm thinking I'll last 2 minutes tops. I may have to bring in reinforcements. On second thought, I better not watch. My roommate voted for that creep and there may be a fight if we watch it. :mad:

ontheEdgeof17
02-02-2005, 01:59 PM
This better not ruin my American Idol time........or does Fox even air it?

estranged4life
02-02-2005, 02:01 PM
Bush will try to mislead the American People with his twisted spin on his administration's spectacular mismanagement of our money our resources and our future:
Bush Misleads on various issues (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2005_sotu.pdf)

What a pimple on the arse of humanity..........

thank God/Allah/Jesus/Manny-Moe-Jack that I have enough DVD's to avoid yet another "Bush's Reich" speech...Think I will watch Anthrax's "Music Of Mass Destruction" DVD instead :nod:

SuzeQuze
02-02-2005, 02:07 PM
This better not ruin my American Idol time........or does Fox even air it?

Fox does air it, but AI is from 8-9 (so we won't miss it :blob1: ) and the SOU is at 9:00 and is 2 HOURS, OY VEZ!!!

BTW, how hot was LL last nite? I love him, and he was so sweet hugging the contestants! :xoxo:

heyjupiter678
02-02-2005, 02:08 PM
This better not ruin my American Idol time........or does Fox even air it? I just checked and AI is still on tonight, from 8-9 EST. The SOTU starts at 9 EST.

ryan8472
02-02-2005, 02:10 PM
Fox does air it, but AI is from 8-9 (so we won't miss it :blob1: ) and the SOU is at 9:00 and is 2 HOURS, OY VEZ!!!

BTW, how hot was LL last nite? I love him, and he was so sweet hugging the contestants! :xoxo:
2 Hours?! What is this, Cuba? :laugh: What could he possibly have to say for 2 hours?

heyjupiter678
02-02-2005, 02:11 PM
BTW, how hot was LL last nite? I love him, and he was so sweet hugging the contestants! :xoxo: I've had a crush on him for the longest time. <333 I started crying when they all got up and hugged the last of those two sisters. :o

dissention
02-02-2005, 02:14 PM
2 Hours?! What is this, Cuba? :laugh: What could he possibly have to say for 2 hours?

1. Gays are the enemy.
2. Medical lawsuits are frivolous.
3. Steroid use in sports is abhorrent (insert shot of Tom Brady).
4. The Iraqi people have been freed.
5. He plans to spend his capital.

And so on. Same old ****. :angel:

SuzeQuze
02-02-2005, 02:16 PM
I've had a crush on him for the longest time. <333 I started crying when they all got up and hugged the last of those two sisters. :o

Haha, I was misty too! :laugh: :)

SuzeQuze
02-02-2005, 02:17 PM
1. Gays are the enemy.
2. Medical lawsuits are frivolous.
3. Steroid use in sports is abhorrent (insert shot of Tom Brady).
4. The Iraqi people have been freed.
5. He plans to spend his capital.

And so on. Same old ****. :angel:

"The success of Iraq proves that I can overhaul Social Security and be completely trusted in my plan for privatization..." :vomit:

Luv ya,

Dubya

heyjupiter678
02-02-2005, 02:18 PM
1. Gays are the enemy.
2. Medical lawsuits are frivolous.
3. Steroid use in sports is abhorrent (insert shot of Tom Brady).
4. The Iraqi people have been freed.
5. He plans to spend his capital.

And so on. Same old ****. :angel: Don't forget the fake Social Security crisis. I'm sure that'll be a big chunk of it.

skcin
02-02-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm not watching him at all. Every time I hear this man speak it makes me sick to my stomach. There's plenty of good mindless fluffy crap to watch on cable. :thumbsup:

SuzeQuze
02-02-2005, 02:36 PM
I'm not watching him at all. Every time I hear this man speak it makes me sick to my stomach. There's plenty of good mindless fluffy crap to watch on cable. :thumbsup:

I've decided I'm not watching it either, Paula. I'll catch the Air America "spin" on it via Stephanie Miller tomorrow morning. At least that will be peppered with laughter as opposed to worshipping the porcelain god all night.

ontheEdgeof17
02-02-2005, 02:37 PM
I just checked and AI is still on tonight, from 8-9 EST. The SOTU starts at 9 EST.


:whew: Close one.

gldstwmn
02-02-2005, 03:39 PM
This better not ruin my American Idol time........or does Fox even air it?

Oh, honey, read that sentence again. Fox?

gldstwmn
02-02-2005, 03:52 PM
1. Gays are the enemy.
2. Medical lawsuits are frivolous.
3. Steroid use in sports is abhorrent (insert shot of Tom Brady).
4. The Iraqi people have been freed.
5. He plans to spend his capital.

And so on. Same old ****. :angel:

Bet he throws some props to his wife Condi. ;) There will also be some kind of religious double speak in reference to future Supreme Court nominees.
That's what I see in my crystal ball. :laugh:

dissention
02-02-2005, 03:55 PM
Bet he throws some props to his wife Condi. ;) There will also be some kind of religious double speak in reference to future Supreme Court nominees.
That's what I see in my crystal ball. :laugh:

:laugh: :thumbsup:

I predict he'll spend a good five minutes blowing sunshine up our skirts regarding Condi Bush. I also predict that we'll get more Godspeak than ever before, too.

gldstwmn
02-02-2005, 04:00 PM
Condi Bush.

If that's not a drag or stripper name, then I don't know what the hell is. :laugh: :wavey:

estranged4life
02-02-2005, 04:07 PM
If that's not a drag or stripper name, then I don't know what the hell is. :laugh: :wavey:

I had one of those once, planted next to my black roses, unfortunately the Condi Bush turned white and died :shrug:

ShangriLaTroubl
02-02-2005, 07:09 PM
I can't wait to hear about this made up social security "crisis" although White House aides say he will no longer use the words "crisis" or say the system will be "flat bust.." or "privatization" he will use other words...he will talk about unity, and of course we will all know that is crap...,


He might be a little arrogant in his thinking that he has "political capital" because of his "mandate" of "winning" by a whopping 3,000,000 or so votes...wooooahhh that sure is a LANDSLIDE Mr. President!

We will hear him say that he wants young people to have control over there money, forgetting to mention that he would fund his program by borrowing trillions of dollars....all while he talks about the rebounding of the economy


Honestly I just like to watch to see the expressions on the democrats faces'...lol and you KNOW they will zoom in on Kerry a lot..and EVERY year they zoom on Kennedy's red boiling face..

Chris

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 07:11 PM
I'll watch tonight for as long as I can. They should have his meds cranked up pretty high.


I cannot watch it because I cannot STAND to see him lean on that podium with his elbow, smirk, and pretend he is a good ole boy as opposed to the elitist he is.

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 07:12 PM
2 Hours?! What is this, Cuba? :laugh: What could he possibly have to say for 2 hours?

He will in that time complete one sentence after several failed attempts (levity) :p :wavey: :laugh: :wavey: ;)

I cannot WAIT to hear Peggy Noonan's take on this!!!

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 07:20 PM
Don't forget the fake Social Security crisis. I'm sure that'll be a big chunk of it.

Now Now - play fair. Almost all agree Social Security must be dealt with now to allow the fund time to rebuild - the whole time value of money argument. I mean even Gore in 2000 called it a crisis or some other similar term - do i have to haul out the "lockbox" speech again :laugh:

I think many justifiably take issue with Bush's approach to the way to fix it - but it does need fixing and it needed it at least ten years ago IMO. Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Carter had a plan to fix it in the late 70's.

IMO, the ONLY way to ensure more money actually goes into the fund for future generations is 1. Tax all earnings and get rid of the $90,000 or so kimit of taxable income and 2. Make it unavailable for retirees with $200,000 (I do not think it can be less, but I am sure some screaming liberal will reduce my $200,000 to $15,000 :laugh: ) or more a year in income. These would enrich the fund for at least another century.

As for the personal accounts, I am not against them per se as long as there are three or four options (stock fund, bond fund, treas. fund, small cap fund (perhaps) and once the personal fund reaches a certain level of income (in combination with all other retirement income) the person can no longer draw from the SS trust fund. I am, however, against letting people invest individually in the market - that would bankrupt the fund faster than it is going to be bankrupt. I do have issues with the trillions it will take to implement this - my my opposition to it.

estranged4life
02-02-2005, 07:56 PM
I cannot watch it because I cannot STAND to see him lean on that podium with his elbow, smirk, and pretend he is a good ole boy as opposed to the elitist he is.

after reading yer post the theme song from "The Dukes Of Hazzard" enter my brain???

"Just a good ol' boy...Never meanin' no harm...Beats all ya ever saw...Been in trouble with the law since the day he was born..."

Hmmm...I guess Bush is "Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane" & Cheney is "Boss Hog" :shrug: :lol:

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 07:58 PM
Also, the focus of SS is IMO a BLATANT effort to take the focus off oF Medicare, which is truly in more of a crisis as it goes broke in 2010 :eek:

Here is a good take on it (amongst many produced by Google)

Social Security: Opportunity, Not a Crisis

By George F. Will

Thursday, January 20, 2005; Page A25

The president's second term will begin today, probably with a flurry of the usual flattery, such as: "My fellow Americans, America is wonderful because you, the people, are wonderful -- the way you wear your hats, the way you sip your tea." But his term also begins with Republicans evidently thinking people must be frightened into accepting sensible Social Security reform, and Democrats invoking chimeric "risks" to frighten people away from a reform that enlarges freedom by reducing the degree to which people are wards of government.

The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in "crisis." That is an exaggeration. Democrats say it should not be reformed because there is no crisis. That is a non sequitur. Social Security should be reformed not because there is a crisis but because there is an opportunity.

What constitutes a crisis is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own. But not to his or her own facts. Here are some:

Social Security outlays may exceed revenue by 2018 -- that date almost certainly will recede further into the future, as it has before, as the economy outperforms expectations. After that, the government bonds that Social Security surpluses have bought (money used to fund the government) will be entirely redeemed, as the Social Security Administration calculates, by 2042. Or 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office, using different assumptions about the rate of economic growth. That depends partly on the rate of productivity growth: Might a growth rate unusually high by historical standards become normal? Immigration rates will affect the ratio of workers to retirees.

Some people warning of a distant Social Security crisis postulate 75 years of 1.8 percent annual growth. But if America has 75 such sluggish years, Social Security's insolvency will hardly be the nation's largest problem -- and personal retirement accounts will reflect, not compensate for, the stagnation.

Changes in life expectancy are certain; what they will be is unclear. Since 1900, life expectancy at birth has increased 30 years (from 47 to 77), mostly during the century's first half, largely from reducing infant mortality by conquering infectious diseases. But since 1950, the most dramatic gain has been in life expectancy at 65. How much more progress can be made there? How many people who live longer will choose to work longer? What unknowable public health developments will intervene? For example, if government succeeds in getting dramatic declines in smoking, some anticipated Social Security savings -- from the early deaths of millions of smokers -- will vanish.

All these are just the known unknowns; there surely are, as Donald Rumsfeld says, unknown unknowns. Which means that today we may be less distant from the enactment of Social Security (1935) than we are from a real solvency crisis in the system.

If Social Security is in crisis, what word can describe the condition of Medicare and Medicaid? Thirteen months ago this administration improvidently enacted a Medicare prescription drug entitlement that by itself adds to Medicare's solvency crisis a sum much larger than the entire Social Security system's shortfall. Given the life-enhancing dynamism of modern pharmacology, no one knows what the menu of prescription drugs will be in even 10 years.

And last year America passed an ominous milestone: Spending by the 50 states on Medicaid exceeded spending by the states on elementary and secondary education. The $4.9 billion gap will widen.

One reason for reforming Social Security is that it is not in crisis compared with Medicare and Medicaid. But the best reasons rise from the philosophy of freedom:

Voluntary personal accounts will allow competing fund managers, rather than a government monopoly on income transfers from workers to retirees, to allocate a large pool of money. This will enhance the economic dynamism conducive to an open society. Personal accounts will respect individuals' autonomy and competence and will narrow the wealth gap by facilitating the accumulation of wealth -- bequeathable wealth -- by people of modest incomes.

It used to be the political left that had an exaggerated confidence in the transparency of the future. The left believed -- because Marx had deciphered history's unfolding, or because the social sciences had new analytic tools -- that the future had become knowable. Hence government could boldly act, sure of society's predictable trajectory. Today some conservatives, beginning their admirable project of Social Security reform, lack the conservative virtue of sobriety about the limits of prophecy. The sober truth is that the philosophic reasons for reforming Social Security are more compelling than the fiscal reasons.

[email protected]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22532-2005Jan19.html

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 08:01 PM
and another from a diff. point of view:

WHAT CRISIS?: It Ain't Broke, So No Need To Fix It
It Ain't Broke, So No Need To Fix It

Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page B02

The latest Social Security trustees' report, whose numbers even the White House uses, predicts that the Social Security program can pay all promised benefits for the next 38 years -- with no changes at all. The June 2004 estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all promised benefits without changes for even longer, until 2052. That's nearly half a century.

And we are supposed to be worried about this? It brings to mind the image of Woody Allen as a nerdy young child in "Annie Hall," becoming suddenly depressed because he has discovered that "the universe is expanding" and life on Earth is ultimately doomed.

Granted, 38 years is not an eternity. But even after 2042, the Social Security trustees say they will be able to pay an average benefit that is actually higher than what workers receive today -- indefinitely. That's in 2004 dollars -- adjusted for inflation.

Social Security benefits are programmed to rise not only with price inflation, but also with wages. So Congress will at some point have to increase taxes or shave the benefits promised to future generations. But that's no different from what's been done before. In fact the projected shortfall for the next 75 years is smaller than shortfalls covered by adjustments in each of the following decades: the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s. It is also about one-third the size of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration.

In other words, it's a non-issue. Or should be. Yet most Americans seem terribly confused about the basic facts. During the third presidential debate last fall, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS told the candidates that Social Security was "running out of money." Neither candidate corrected him, and the press did not note the error.

Here are some of the obfuscations and accounting tricks -- or misunderstandings -- that have created false impressions about Social Security's finances:

The disappearing trust fund: Some people say that Social Security will run into trouble in 2018. But this is like saying that Bill Gates will be strapped if he works only part time. He will still have $40 billion in assets, enough to keep him living well for a long time.

Similarly, the Social Security trust fund will have more than $3.7 trillion in today's dollars in 2018. Combined with payroll tax revenues, that is enough to cover promised benefits until 2042, the trustees' report says.

"That money's all been spent": When anyone lends money to the federal government by buying a bond, the government spends it. But the government still pays interest and repays what it borrowed. That goes for the Social Security trust fund. Social Security has been running annual surpluses (now at more than $150 billion) since 1983. By law it must invest that surplus in U.S. Treasury obligations.

"But the trust fund is only holding I.O.U.'s -- just pieces of paper!" Another canard: All bonds are I.O.U.'s. Those "pieces of paper" are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has never, ever defaulted on its bonds.

"The baby boomers' retirement will bankrupt Social Security." Far from it. The first boomers actually begin retiring in 2008. Most of them will be dead before Social Security faces any financial difficulties.

"There are currently 3.3 workers paying into Social Security for every beneficiary; by 2035, there will be only 2.1." True enough, but deceptive and not scary as it sounds. Productivity (output per hour) will grow substantially during the same period, so we won't need nearly as many working people to support a larger retired population.

"If nothing is done, Social Security and Medicare will eat up 90 percent of our federal budget by 2050." The trick here is throwing in Medicare, a separate program. The projected costs of Medicare are indeed out of control -- a result of spiraling health care costs. This makes a strong case for health care reform, but that has nothing to do with Social Security.

The bottom line is that Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history, according to Social Security trustees' numbers. If workers in 2050, who will be earning on average 68 percent more in real, inflation-adjusted dollars than they are today, have to pay 1 or 2 percent more of their income in taxes -- as they have in the past -- they won't be able to complain much. They will still enjoy higher living standards than we do today. And Social Security will provide much larger real annual benefits for longer retirements when their turn comes.

The impending crisis of Social Security is a myth. Without it, however, Bush's initiative to slash benefits and partially privatize the program wouldn't have a prayer.

Authors' e-mail: [email protected]

By Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker, co-directors of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and co-authors of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (University of Chicago Press).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2005Jan22.html

Correction to This Article
A Jan. 23 Outlook graphic on Social Security said that, as of 2002, 65 percent of Americans relied on Social Security for at least half their income, and 20 percent for all their income. The percentages are for Americans age 65 and older, not for all Americans. Also, a dropped line in a graphic caused the date of the signing of the Social Security Act to appear under the year 1934; the correct year is 1935. Also, a caption with a photograph of Ida M. Fuller, the first person to receive a monthly Social Security check in 1940, suggested that she was 76 at the time. She was 76 when the photo was taken, in 1950.

Sugar
02-02-2005, 08:01 PM
I'm pretty sure that investments would be limited to bond funds and index funds.

There's also the theory that if we can keep the politicians from borrowing from it that it would heal itself... :shrug:

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 08:06 PM
I'm pretty sure that investments would be limited to bond funds and index funds.

I cannot imagine W and his cronies would limit it to that. Even Clinton said the other day that if we have to have it (which he did not really say we should) it should be like the govt. 401K's which have the four options I mentioned. But, if it is limited to bond funds, that would be better than nothing assuming you retire when the bond market is bullish :eek:

There's also the theory that if we can keep the politicians from borrowing from it that it would heal itself... :shrug:

Yep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But, I still FOR THE LIFE OF ME cannot understand why there is a $90,000 or so cap on taxable income. Mind you, I am not talikng, much to Diss' chagrain :laugh: :wavey: - about a 50% SS tax on income above $90,000 - I think it should be taxed at the regular rate. There is to me no logical reason to adhere to the $90,000 cap. other than greeed.

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 08:07 PM
. . . & Cheney is "Boss Hog" :shrug: :lol:

and his wife (presuming she actually is a woman) Lynn is the sow in the field wallowing in the excrement and mud :eek:

HATE HER :laugh:

dissention
02-02-2005, 08:09 PM
and his wife (presuming she actually is a woman) Lynn is the sow in the field wallowing in the excrement and mud :eek:

HATE HER :laugh:

:confused:

She'd be the excrement that Dick's pig is wallowing in.

ryan8472
02-02-2005, 08:10 PM
:confused:

She'd be the excrement that Dick's pig is wallowing in.
That Dick is wallowing in. :eek: :laugh: :sorry:

strandinthewind
02-02-2005, 08:13 PM
:confused:

She'd be the excrement that Dick's pig is wallowing in.

no - she is a saw and she is wallowing in excrement and mud as sow's tend to do - at least the Eastern European sows as opposed to West African ones :cool:

Sugar
02-02-2005, 08:17 PM
Can't remember where I saw that about the index and bond funds...of course it's all just conjecture until tonight. But I wonder about that too. Who will these changes apply to? People who are far enough away from retirement to ensure some sort of a return?

I have to say that I would be in the "leave it alone and see if it comes back" camp. I saw somewhere that the cost to switch over to the new system would be between $1-2 trillion.

dissention
02-02-2005, 08:20 PM
That Dick is wallowing in. :eek: :laugh: :sorry:

OMG, that guy in your sig (with the blonde hair) looks like a Gibb brother. :shocked: :eek:

I so do not get your fascination with Flowers. :laugh:

gldstwmn
02-02-2005, 10:26 PM
I had one of those once, planted next to my black roses, unfortunately the Condi Bush turned white and died :shrug:

LMFAO! :lol:

ryan8472
02-03-2005, 06:33 AM
OMG, that guy in your sig (with the blonde hair) looks like a Gibb brother. :shocked: :eek:

I so do not get your fascination with Flowers. :laugh:
That'd be Mark, the bassist. :nod:

Brandon is the man! He's just got it all, the voice, the moves, the synthesizer, the looks :::sigh::: :laugh:

Err, ok, back to political discussion/satire. :lol:

Vianna
02-03-2005, 09:17 AM
What political capital does this guy have, I'd like to know? Winning by 51%, probably illegally, does not constitute political capital. Wake up Georgie boy...

golddustdragon
02-03-2005, 10:02 PM
So, Social Security is the new WMD now. Next thing you will know, data contrary to what Bush uses (aka the truth) will prove Social Security would not go bankrupt in 2042. And then, all the retirees will be f***ed. And those who are currently in the work force will be f***ed by retirement age. Look here Republicans. I know you're jealous that you could not pull a Hitler because of FDR but please, take your anger elsewhere.

SuzeQuze
02-03-2005, 11:00 PM
So, Social Security is the new WMD now. Next thing you will know, data contrary to what Bush uses (aka the truth) will prove Social Security would not go bankrupt in 2042. And then, all the retirees will be f***ed. And those who are currently in the work force will be f***ed by retirement age. Look here Republicans. I know you're jealous that you could not pull a Hitler because of FDR but please, take your anger elsewhere.

I think that data already exists because when he said it would be bankrupt in 2042 I heard a resounding "NOOOO" in the background. I've never seen the president heckled like that. But since he put math in the axis of evil he's been ignoring "fuzzy math". :laugh: