George Bush is misleading us re: Social Security

[Neil D]

Now George Bush is misleading

us about Social Security.

First George Bush said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass

destruction and a “mushroom cloud” was imminent. Now, he’s claimingsomething equally outrageous; a phony Social Security “crisis.”

George Bush claims Social Security will be “flat broke” and

“bust” by the time today’s workers retire. He says Social Security is going “bankrupt.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts are that Social Security can meet 100% of its

obligations for the next 37 years with no changes to the current system, according to the Social Security Administration itself.

Further, after 2042, the system reports it can pay more than 70% of benefits even if we do absolutely nothing. But we can, and should, do something.

People don’t pay Social Security taxes on a penny of their

income above $90,000 a year. Not a single penny. What if they did?

The system would be in strong shape long after 2042.

But instead of the wealthy paying their fair share of Social

Security taxes, George Bush is pushing the high-risk concept of Social Security privatization.

Privatization means cuts of up to 46% in guaranteed benefits,

according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Privatization means trillions of dollars in debt and billions in fees for George Bush’s wealthy donors at financial institutions.

And privatization means Social Security is no longer a guaranteed monthly check for America’s seniors, because the market can go down, not just up.

Social Security isn’t “broke,” “bankrupt” or in “crisis.” And

the sooner everyone – especially the media – begins to look at this administration’s claims with a more skeptical eye, the better. So call your congressmen. Send in the coupon below and help us tell the truth about Social Security. And make sure you are not misled again.

[Dr. Shane]

You align yourself with the ultra liberal left wing instead of the moderate Democrats. If that is where you want to be. Us moderates can see a car crash coming before it hits the brick wall.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

You align yourself with the ultra liberal left wing instead of the moderate Democrats. If that is where you want to be. Us moderates can see a car crash coming before it hits the brick wall.

---

Quit calling me names, Shane...Refute it or shut up.....

[Neil D]

Bush's Defunct Economist

by Fred Block

The case for privatizing Social Security depends on an error of logic. If in the future, there are too few wage earners to support too many retirees, private accounts will not solve the problem.

George W. Bush’s arguments about Social Security perfectly illustrate an observation made by the economist John Maynard Keynes. “Practical men,” Keynes wrote, “who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” President Bush has demonstrated slavish devotion to T.R. Malthus, one of the founders of political economy who promoted the idea that human population grows geometrically while the food supply grows only arithmetically.

Sadly, the President lacks the intellectual honesty of his notorious forebear who argued that the threat of overpopulation justifies withholding public assistance from the hungry. Malthus insisted that society has, at any particular moment, a limited supply of food. By giving food to those who are not working, there is less for those who are working. And if the employed get too little, they won’t work as hard and production will decline. The consequence is a vicious cycle of increasing conflict for limited resources between those who work and those who are dependent on transfers.

Malthus’ solution was to let the poor starve. He acknowledged that his conclusion was harsh, but he saw it as nature’s way of balancing population and food supply.

Current discussions no longer focus solely on food, but on a broader range of basic consumer goods that include food, shelter, heat, and medicines. But like Malthus, the President’s argument about the unsustainability of Social Security starts with the ratio of employed workers to recipients. “And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it’s only about three workers and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary,” the President asserted in his State of the Union address.

The President uses this argument to support his case for the creation of private accounts to solve the system’s long term problems. But it is here that he suddenly ignores Malthus’ logic. Malthus knew that it was impossible for a working-age person to put aside the goods that he or she would need ten or twenty years in the future. The retiree could only consume the goods that were actually being produced at that point in the future.

For that reason, private accounts cannot solve the problem of the worsening demographic ratios. There will still be only two workers to support each retiree, so the threat of a destructive Malthusian struggle between those in the labor force and those in retirement would remain. If there are not enough goods and services to go around, there will be destructive social conflicts even if some people have access to substantial private accounts.

To be sure, the advocates of private accounts insist that the change of policy will increase private savings and this will, in turn, produce increased investment and a much larger economic pie in the future. But this is an unproven argument, especially since the Bush plan is to finance these private accounts by substantially increasing government borrowing which would offset any increase in private saving.

Malthus would be blunter. He would say that if there are going to be too many old people living too long, then let the poorest ones either go back to work or starve, and the ratio between workers and nonworkers will inevitably improve. This is the logic of George W. Bush’s argument, but he doesn’t dare admit it—at least not publicly.

But surely after 200 years, we can do better than embracing Malthus’ dismal logic. The increase in average life expectancy is one of our society’s greatest achievements; it should be the occasion of celebration and joy. We should obey the commandment to honor our fathers and mothers by assuring that all of the elderly get what they need for a decent standard of living—no matter how long they live.

Instead of privatizing Social Security and imagining that everyone will be self-sufficient, we need to think about creating a “moral economy” built on an ethic of care for those who are dependent. This means strengthening Social Security to assure that increasing life expectancy will be a blessing for the elderly.

Future Malthusian struggles can be averted if we invest now to grow the economy. The privatizers insist that we must rely only on low taxes and the benevolence of corporate CEO’s, but they are wrong. We need active public sector leadership to invest in the skills of our young people and in the new technologies that are the keys to our future economic well-being. The first step to a moral economy and future prosperity is to reverse George Bush’s irrational and destructive tax giveaways to the wealthiest of our citizens. Investing those billions in education and new technologies is the real way to protect Social Security

[Dr. Shane]

It isn't about calling names. It is about political positions. President Bill Clinton proposed almost the exact same reforms for Social Security. He enjoyed the support of Republicans and moderate Democrats. Then when the Monica story broke he had to abandon his Social Security reforms in order to embrace the radical left, which he needed to defend him.

That same radical left has since taken over control of the Democrat party. Just take a look at the new DNC chairman! The radical left has hijacked the Democrat party from the moderates. If Hilary is able to get the nomination that will be a victory for the moderates in the party. Look for the wacko left fringe to oppose her.

If Bush is lying now, Clinton was lying even more before. Well, I guess it wouldn't be hard to believe that Clinton lied. But about Social Security? Come on, the wacko left claims there is no problem. Those to the right of Micheal Moore and Howard Dean know better. We're not drinking the kool-aid.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

It isn't about calling names

---

You are absolutely right. It isn't about calling me names. So how come you continually do so? And don't say that you are not calling me names. BEcause you are. It stops NOW. Or I will report this thread to Stan and the adminstrators.

Quote:

---

The radical left has hijacked the Democrat party from the moderates.

---

There is no radical left, Shane. You have no concept as to what a 'radical left'is....What you have is a radicle right, pointing at moderates and calling them "radical left"...Your posistion is a morality of legalism. And it is foul in it's influence and stinks. It continues to use hate language and perpetrate moderates as evil doers. It can not understand the intellectual and flys off the handle when the intellectual confronts the psuedo-faith of legalism. You fight what you don't understand with psuedo-religion and black and white morals that fit nicely within your small well defined by-your-standards pathetic universe.

Quote:

---

Well, I guess it wouldn't be hard to believe that Clinton lied. But about Social Security? Come on, the wacko left claims there is no problem.

---

That "wacko left" that you are so sure is bent on lying tothe public, is the AARP...a conservative organisation dedicated to the elders of the human race....So much for your "wacko-left".... Sheeesh!

So, Shane, do you *like* inserting your foot into your mouth like this?

[K]

Have you seen the AARP ad concerning Bush's plan? It was running in Texas about a month ago. It might be running now, but I don't see much TV.

By the way the AARP crown doesn't like the Bush plan.

K

[bevin]

Quote:

---

President Bill Clinton proposed almost the exact same reforms for Social Security. He enjoyed the support of Republicans and moderate Democrats. Then when the Monica story broke he had to abandon his Social Security reforms in order to embrace the radical left, which he needed to defend him.

---

Shane is following modern Republican dogma = he repeats a lie to make people believe it is true. I discredited this statement using Shane's own source last time he made it.

Clinton proposed a bilateral debate, and listed a range of options, and explicited backed none of them.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Clinton proposed a bilateral debate, and listed a range of options, and explicited backed none of them.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Bush proposed a bilateral debate, and listed a range of options. Since he has not been distracted by a scandel and impeachment, he has been able to explicitely back some of them.

Sister K, I suspect you know the the AARP is a liberal organization that has even refused to let conservative authors advertise their books with them.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane is following modern Republican dogma

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nice try at trying to label me but I don't think I am quite as transparent as others on this forum. But I won't accuse you of calling me names. I have not even decided if I favor private accounts although I do favor Social Security reform.

[K]

Quote:

---

[:"blue"]Sister K, I suspect you know the the AARP is a liberal organization that has even refused to let conservative authors advertise their books with them [/]

---

Well a whole bunch of those so called liberals voted for Dubya.

K

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

[:"blue"] WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.

The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles, now says it plans to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing the private investment accounts at the center of Mr. Bush's plan.

"They are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts," said Charlie Jarvis, president of USA Next and former deputy under secretary of the interior in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We will be the dynamite that removes them. [/]

---

Quote:

---

[:"green"] Demonizing AARP

What interesting timing that FOX News should pick yesterday to attack AARP. What a wild coincidence that this should happen just as George Bush is getting ready to unveil the details of privatizing portions of Social Security, a scheme that AARP opposes.

You know right away that there's something suspicious about AARP from the title of the article on FOXNews.com and the accompanying video available on the web, AARP Rakes in Cash.

As the title promises, a large chunk of the article is devoted to describing the millions that AARP "rakes in" from royalties, its magazine, membership dues, investments and sales of insurance policies and prescription drugs.

A few paragraphs in, FOX moves in for the attack. "AARP's newest crusade... calls for a stop to the president's push for allowing young workers to invest a portion of the taxes they pay for the retirement account into the stock market." FOX describes Bush's plan to "allow young workers to invest" in a positive light, yet leaves out a few important details of Bush's privatization scheme such as the fact that it will siphon funds away from the current social security system and raise the deficit by at least a trillion dollars.

FOX then says, "Some conservatives call (AARP's objections) hypocrisy... 'AARP seems to believe that capitalism is a fine thing as long as they're the only ones practicing it,' said Pete Sepp, vice president of communications for the National Taxpayers Union... 'AARP is the emperor with no clothes. How can an organization so heavily invested in the stock market tell others they can't do it?' Sepp said.

Of course, the next paragraph explains that AARP is NOT against people investing in the stock market, just against gambling in the market with Social Security accounts. "There is a place in your retirement portfolio for risk and a place where there... such a risk is not appropriate," said AARP's federal affairs director, David Certner.

Raising an accusation, then having a denial, is a typical FOX News way of putting forth a host of spurious allegations into the forefront of its audience's minds. They did it with the Swift Boat Vets, most notably.

Well, while we're on the topic of hypocrisy, I wonder why no FOX reporter has mentioned that while Bush is happy to have the public risk its retirement money in the stock market, its a guaranteed bonanza for the financial services industry. Also unmentioned is that would mean a sure windfall in advertising dollars for FOX, especially if it goes ahead with its stated goal of starting up a new channel devoted to financial news.

FOX's vested interest in Bush's privatization scheme wouldn't have anything to do with a negative report on AARP, would it? [/]

---

And some here think that the AARP is a liberall [???????] organisation.....Oh bother......

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

...Bush proposed a bilateral debate, and listed a range of options. Since he has not been distracted by a scandal and impeachment,....

---

"Bush... bilateral debate" ROFL!!! In the same sentence even!!!! Bush wouldn't recognize bipartisan or bilateral debate if it rose up and bit him on the tukkus...

"Since he has not been distracted by a scandel..." Strange how the scandal of his own lies and incompetence don't distract him from plowing ahead despite the lack of public support for his ideas on SS... Speaking of which, you would think the fact that 2/3 of Americans do not support his SS solution would distract him at least a little....

"range of options" ????? Two options - my way or the highway - is not a range...

"impeachmment"... Now there's an idea that has some merit.... But pretty tough to get Congress to go down that path when they can't seem to see anything wrong with Dubbya's Texas buddy, Tommy DeLay...

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Both President Clinton and Bush have worked in a bipartisan manner, as I think every president needs to. If one cannot see that I think it shows how partisan they are.

[Neil D]

I know that Clinton had to work with a republican congress, so he had to be bipartisian....Bush ,on the other hand, I dont think he's done much bipartisan work....He's gotten his way because if a democrate didn't vote the president's way, he was concidered unpatriotic...

[Dr. Shane]

Last night Bush rattled off a list of legislation he has passed in a bipartisan fassion. Of course the Hate-Bush crowd will claim that doesn't count <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

If you look at his record as governor you will see he worked quite well with Democrats. Trouble is that in Washington, Democrats are more concerned about reaquiring power than getting things done for the American people. Bush was not prepared for that kind of partisanship and thus has not been able to set the new tone like he did here in Texas.

One sad note is that when Bush left Texas his new tone left with him. Our new governor has been very partisan and stands a good chance of being defeated if the Democrats can come up with a decent canidate.

[K]

Quote:

---

[:"blue"]If you look at his record as governor you will see he worked quite well with Democrats. Trouble is that in Washington, Democrats are more concerned about reaquiring power than getting things done for the American people. Bush was not prepared for that kind of partisanship and thus has not been able to set the new tone like he did here in Texas.

[/]

---

George W. Bush served as governor of Texas from January 17, 1995 to December 21, 2000, resigning as governor in the middle of his second term to become president of the United States. [:"red"]( He promised us when he ran again that he would complete his term. So much for that promise.) [/]

He challenged the incumbent governor, Democrat Ann Richards, running on promises to improve public education [:"red"](Thank you Dubya for TASS, TACKS and whatever alphapet tests we are doing now in Texas. Teachers are now teach to the test instead of to the students. So much pressure is on teachers to succeed that they have been known to ask the students who will mess up the numbers to stay home on the test day.) [/] and to reform the juvenile justice system, welfare, [:"red"]( This was probably one of his biggest successes here. John Sharp got us to using the Lone Star Card for food stamps, and it takes away the stigma as well as cut the cost of that program.) [/] and the state's tort laws -- the system under which an injured person may sue for damages. [:"red"] (We all know who this law helps. It wasn't the average person, but the lawyers. )[/] During the 74th Legislature in 1995, he worked with the Democrats who controlled both houses of the Texas legislature and managed to get bills passed that dealt with the four issues he had emphasized in his campaign. Bush was seen as pro-business and a consensus-builder.

Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. To pay for the cuts, he sought (unsuccessfully) federal approval of a plan to privatize Texas' social services. Education reform was a priority throughout his terms, with legislation emphasizing local control of schools, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Controversy has followed, with charter schools mired in financial scandals and protests against one test determining a child's promotion. After winning reelection in 1998, Bush began his bid for the presidency and was not as involved in the 76th Legislature in 1999. [:"red"]( We basically had no governor during this time.)[/]

This information is from Dubya's own state archives.

K

[Dr. Shane]

In other words he was an excellent governor that accomplished a lot in a bipartisan fassion. My point exactly. And he followed what he believed to be God's prompting to run for President. He is a good man - not perfect but none of us are.

I know a lot of teachers are upset about being held accountable. A lot of people don't like accountability.

Tort reform benifits everyone that buys anything from any retail store and especially those of us that buy insurance.

Pro-business is a buzz word. The government needs to create a business friendly environment if we are going to entice business to stay here and not go to another state or country. However on the other hand the environment and workers' rights needs to be protected. Texas is the only state that doesn't require workers' compensation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> And that is not Bush's fault, although he did nothing to change it.

Charter schools are a good start however what we need are complete freedom to send your child to any public school regardless of what district you live in and vouchers to send them to private school if you wish.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

In other words he was an excellent governor that accomplished a lot in a bipartisan fassion.

---

You LIKE being screwed by a president who favors business over you, the little man??? Man, your values are screwy...

Quote:

---

I know a lot of teachers are upset about being held accountable. A lot of people don't like accountability.

---

We've talked about this before, Shane...Every teacher, and I have access to a lot of teacher, HATES this legislation because it does one thing, it dumbs down the kids, in the sense that it makes them study to the test, not the subject. Learning takes place on so many levels that you don't have to teach to the test. And with SO MANY TESTS, there is not enough time to teach subjects. So, what you have Shane, is a bunch of kids whose expertise is taking tests, and not understanding concepts and learning life time principles.

While listening to Georgie, I actually heard him say that teachers are grateful for his laws and that they like this system....Yeah, well, my only reply to this is that he is lying thru his teeth...just like a bad politician...And Georgie is not a bad politician, he's bad and mean...

You like him because he's personable...I don't like him because his prinicples stink and he's making the little guy littler.

[Dr. Shane]

Regardless of the opinion of teachers that don't like to be held responible for getting results, the education legislation was bipartisan in both Texas and at the federal level. I have told the story before, that in this past election I worked with a Republican canidate that opposed NCLB who was running against a Democrat that favored NCLB.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Regardless of the opinion of teachers that don't like to be held responible for getting results,

---

I keep trying to tell you, Shane, but you don't hear. The teachers don't mind being held responsible. They tend to like it and have thier own standards that are higher than the publics. Of course, there are a few bad apples and they are being culled. But with teaching, you let teachers teach. The public sets the bar and the teacher reach that bar. And you got to admit, over all, they do pretty good...When it comes to our SDA kids, our Teachers do better, real better...which goes to show the value of SDA Christian education...

Well then, they are stupid. They need to get in touch with some "on-the-front-lines" teachers and ask them what is needed to make thier jobs easier, not harder.

[Dr. Shane]

Teachers have to teach to a test because testing is the only way we have to measure knowledge. Now it isn't a perfect system but it has been used for centuries and centuries. There is no way for us to know if the children are learning unless we test them. A lot of teachers don't like that because it holds them accountable. Well, such is life. We all need to be held accountable.

Again NCLB was bipartisan legelislation. Bush can work with the other party when they want to work with him.

[Neil D]

Shane, we have been over this before....and like a republican PR machine, you are repeating the same rhetoric. Rhetoric that is without experience/knowledge, not looking at the classes thru the teacher's eyes.

You are talking thru the myth of what the public thinks teachers do...Go to work for 6 hours, with maybe a couple of hours to prepare for the next day...What you don't realize, is that teaching is a way of life. Everything, from getting up in the morning, to when they close thier eyes for sleep, is about teaching, finding illustrations to create understanding of a subject. It's bringing home the homework of 25-35 kids, and grading, not just one subject, but several subjects a night. It preparing for a lesson and planing the one next week all in one night after getting home. To teach to tests, is preping the kids to ONE way of learning only. And learning is so much more than that. With NCLB, teachers test excessively. They are required to prep the kids for repeated tests within the week to show that they are "learning' a subject. Teachers don't mind being responsible, but they surely do mind when someone tells them how to do thier job...and that is what NCLB does...It tells them that there is only one way to learn.

Did you know that NCLB is already an absolute failure? There is not a child nor a county nor a state that has sucessufully passed the standards the states have set. And the reason is 2 fold...1] The federal goverement has accepted 50 different standards. That means a child leaving one state fall under another standard in another state. 2] States are already finding thier funding cuts and they are not liking it. Even the state of Texas has failed and is losing funding...Concider Utah, who is concidering pulling out of the NCLB because of mandates that are unfunded. [And yes, that is where you are loosing money, unfunded mandates]

Quote:

---

Again NCLB was bipartisan legelislation. Bush can work with the other party when they want to work with him.

---

Bush is under the impression, or at least that is what he is telling us, that NCLB is succeeding [Heck, he even started it]....It aint and the federal goverment needs to leave it alone and let the states do thier part in setting thier own standards to what they need. But nooooo....he has to put his finger in the pie and see if he can make it better...Well, the dang burn boy is no cook, and if it worn't for Daddy's influence, he couldn't do squat. Shoot, just look at all the crooks that he's put in office of late. Every single one of them from the Iran-Contra affair as crook...We should see Ollie being recalled pretty soon at this rate..

[Dr. Shane]

I am not the one repeating rhetoric, Brother Neil. I am quite familiar with the issue and the more you talk the more I wonder if you know what you are talking about.

I am not currently a teacher - that is true. A vice-president has offered me a teaching position at a local community college in a couple years when they start up a construction management position. God willing, I will accept and work as adjunct faculty teaching a class one night each week.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I am not the one repeating rhetoric,

---

Yes you are, Shane...You can't say anything different because you haven't researched it out for yourself. If you did, you would be amazed at what was said vs what reallity is, and you would realize the lies that Bush is making and advancing...

But, hey, I understand "comfort zone"...You like that republican rhetoric...It's got that good ol' fashioned hate language in it. And it feels sooooo good to use it.

[Dr. Shane]

When you get done drinking your kool-aid maybe we can carry on this discussion. Rememeber I am the guy that served as a congressional canidates' campaign consultant. And he was against NCLB!!! We had many many discussions about it as we talk about nothing but poltical issues when working on a campaign. This is a nonpartisan issue and is an example of Bush working in a bipartisan manner.