 |
 |
Dow Jones Gets It Right
October 05th 04:20:33 PM
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--President George W. Bush acknowledged that the
appetite for Social Security reform has "diminished" on Capitol Hill, but said he is still committed to overhauling the system.
"Social Security, for me, is never off," he told reporters during his first press conference since May. "It's a long-term problem that's going to need to be addressed."
Bush's plan to reform the system includes the controversial creation of individual savings accounts funded from payroll taxes. But momentum for reform has stalled as lawmakers and the White House focus on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Bush's approval rating falters.
"There seems to be a diminished appetite in the short term, but I'm
going to remind people that there is a long-term issue that we must solve, not only for the sake of the budget but, more importantly, for the sake of younger workers, who are going to either have to pay a ton of money in order to justify current benefits or to take a look at the underlying causes of the growth of benefits and do something about it, show some political courage."
Though he said he still has "plenty" of political capital to spend,
Bush's top short-term goal is securing a fiscally responsible budget, which will include offsets to pay for much of the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Bush again urged Congress to enact cuts in discretionary, non-security spending contained in the administration's budget, and find further reductions in mandatory spending.
"In the long run, you know, there's two big issues looming that are
budgetary issues," Bush said. "These are the unfunded liabilities
inherent in the mandatory programs of Social Security and Medicare."
Posted by Chris Schrimpf
Comments
So rather than respond to my comments, you once again posted tons of meaningless crap to your blog in order to flush my comments from your webpage. So here's where the discussion left off:
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblog.secureourfuture.org/mt-tb.cgi/160
Comments
Social Security Equity Funds EQUAL More Big Government Control and Corruption.
S4 Sucks.
Posted by: Noid at September 29, 2005 07:13 PM
Noid, I love you man, but if your posts don't start having some kind of content, i'm going to delete them and block your ip.
I think that we have an incredibly lenient comments policy here. In fact, I don't think that we have removed a comment yet.
You may criticize us as much as you like as long as you keep it civil and informative.
Copying and pasting "S4 Sucks" on to every post isn't going to work.
Posted by: Jeremy Tunnell at September 30, 2005 10:39 AM
Just to chime in, if these kids take the time to post something new every day, you could take the time, to come up with a new critique that somehow relates to what they're talking about.
Posted by: charlie at September 30, 2005 02:49 PM
booyah!
Posted by: ponzi at September 30, 2005 03:27 PM
QUOTE:
Just to chime in, if these kids take the time to post something new every day, you could take the time, to come up with a new critique that somehow relates to what they're talking about.
/QUOTE:
They aren't posting anything particularly new, just different ways of ignorantly limiting the debate to issues of 'rate of return'. Such ignorance will be very damaging to our country if social security equity fnuds are passed.
Oh, and BTW if you wanted to get me to stop posting what I've been posting, you should actually try replying to its content, that your proposals will increase the influence and power of the federal government, rather than making fascist threats of censorship. But of course, that would require that you all admit how wrong you are.
PS:
Social Security Equity Funds EQUAL More Big Government Control and Corruption.
S4 Sucks.
Posted by: Noid at September 30, 2005 06:23 PM
Noid, your persistence is impressive.
I concede that there is, of course, the possibility that personal accounts will open up a new realm of government regulation, something you and I both abhor. I firmly believe, however, that the risk is very limited and is one worth taking considering the very imperfect position we find ourselves in.
What evidence, besides postulation, do you have that personal accounts will spark increased gov't regulation of the market? Over 30 countries have already created personal accounts - has any of these countries experienced the kind of regulation that concerns you? Has Chile's gov't imposed increasing strictures on financial markets? Quite the contrary: the institution of personal accounts has steadily liberalized the market. Chileans are offered a more liberal selection of investment options every year.
We all share your concern Noid, but simply repeating yourself is ineffectual. Show me some empirical evidence or tenable reasoning and we can make this a discussion, not a repitition contest.
Posted by: Fransisco d'Anconia at October 1, 2005 12:14 PM
Hey Noid,
Are you a virgin?
Jason Varitek
Posted by: Jason Varitek at October 3, 2005 02:29 AM
Funniest Post Ever!!!
Posted by: Adam Cahn at October 3, 2005 02:32 AM
Fransisco,
Read this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/draft-govinvest.cfm
There's lots of examples of corrupted "personal accounts"
Posted by: Noid at October 3, 2005 05:02 PM
Also, how long have these 30 countries had "personal accounts"? Do they invest largely in U.S. or other foreign companies? Perhaps their politicians haven't had enough time or enough stock to control to effectively screw their contituents. Or perhaps Chilean corruption isn't important enough to make the pages of the New York Times.
Are you including China as one of your 30 countries? According to http://english.chinamil.com.cn/english/pladaily/2004/09/08/20040908001017_TodayHeadlines.html
"In 2000, the Chinese Government decided to create a national social security fund. Its sources include: funds acquired from reducing state shareholding, stock ownership assets, funds from the central budget, funds raised by other means approved by the State Council, and investment returns. The national social security fund is administered by the National Social Security Fund Executive Council, and is operated on market principles in accordance with the procedures and requirements prescribed by the "Interim Measures for the Management of the Investment of the National Social Security Fund." The national social security fund provides an important financial reserve for the implementation of old-age insurance and other social security programs. By the end of 2003, it had accumulated over 130 billion yuan."
That sounds a lot like an "independently" managed
equity fund that ya'll seem to be advocating. Now if you know stuff about China, you'd know that their entire way of corporate life right now consists of kissing the govt's ass to become blessed and supported by the PLA so that you are invested in. I think it'd take awhile for the U.S. to get to *that* stage but the "personal" accounts that you advocate would pave the way.
If you think phasing SS out with nothing is politically unreasonable, why not support my suggestion of just phasing SS out by letting people opt for diverting their payroll taxes to FDIC insured bank CD's, municipal bonds, and U.S. treasuries of *the people's* choice. You wouldn't
be legally giving the feds any more power and the
investment would be safer than equity funds so they'd be an easier sell to those unreasonably afraid of the stock market.
Posted by: Noid at October 3, 2005 05:34 PM
Posted by: Noid at October 4, 2005 07:34 PM
Not only that, you got rid of your homepage link to the archives too. I'll tell you one thing, as full of crap as Crock the Vote was, at least they did a great job of presenting a forum to discuss the issue. This site totally sucks it and gives change. But what should I expect from a bunch of neo-CON suppresive fascists
Posted by: Noid at October 4, 2005 07:50 PM
I think all the archives are here http://weblog.secureourfuture.org/ over on the right hand side
Posted by: Roark at October 4, 2005 08:41 PM
Posted by Noid on October 05th 08:09:36 PM
Yeah, but the point is they got rid of the link on their homepage in what I believe was a lame attempt to ignore and hide my pertinent comments.
Posted by Noid on October 05th 08:14:41 PM
Noid:
This is your last warning. Cut-and-paste comment spam will not be tolerated. You're welcome to say just about anything you like about us. We try to abide by a rule of "freedom of speech" here. You are free to say what you want, and we are free not to respond. As a libertarian, would you not agree that we have that right on our own site?
Second, give me a break. You think we rearranged our site just to hide your comments? I have news for you, I could delete all of your comments and block your ip address in about five minutes. No need to redesign our site to do that.
Third, you are a coward for hiding behind the pseudonym "noid" and your fake email address. I think you will see that nobody hides their identities around here. We stand behind what we say, and I think it says a lot about your argument that you are not willing to do the same.
The next time you spam our comments I am blocking you.
Posted by Jeremy on October 05th 10:47:47 PM
QUOTE:
>This is your last warning. Cut-and-paste comment
>spam will not be tolerated. You're welcome to say
>just about anything you like about us. We try to
>abide by a rule of "freedom of speech" here. You
>are free to say what you want, and we are free
>not to respond. As a libertarian, would you not
>agree that we have that right on our own site?
You certainly do, and I have the right to use your comments section to explain exactly how full of crap you are. I'm not spamming.
>Second, give me a break. You think we rearranged
>our site just to hide your comments? I have news
>for you, I could delete all of your comments and
>block your ip address in about five minutes. No
>need to redesign our site to do that.
Go ahead and try it. Yes I think you arranged your site a day ago and flushed my comments by posting a bunch of lame crap to deliberately make it difficult if not impossible for those I was talking with to respond to me. And by doing so you have a sort of plausible explanation to justify it which you wouldn't have had you chosen to act like the fascist that you're dying to be.
>Third, you are a coward for hiding behind the >pseudonym "noid" and your fake email address. I >think you will see that nobody hides their
>identities around here. We stand behind what we >say, and I think it says a lot about your >argument that you are not willing to do the same.
Wow. So rather than choose to respond to my comments you'd rather attack my choice of name, about as clear an ad hominem attack as you could make. Do you feel that people "doing business as" a corporation to limit their liability are all cowards too? Both they and I are acting sensibly in a world filled with fascists like you and the others running this pathetic fish-rag of a website.
>The next time you spam our comments I am blocking you.
Go for it, fascist. I'm not spamming you. My comments are all on topic and I'm trying to facilitate relevant conversation, unlike your attempts to hide it. Too bad honest discussion makes your cause so laughable.
Posted by Noid on October 06th 07:45:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
