State Of The Union Address
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The official State of the Union topic.</div> <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898631/?GT1=6190' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898631/?GT1=6190</a>
In case you missed it.
Unfortunately I have to get up early tomorrow but I wanted to get the discussion started I'll post my thoughts tomorrow.
Discuss.
In case you missed it.
Unfortunately I have to get up early tomorrow but I wanted to get the discussion started I'll post my thoughts tomorrow.
Discuss.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find that funny, coming from a man whos started 2* wars while in office and seems to be looking to start a 3rd. How can he expect the youth of America to reject violence when the leader of the freeworld uses it so often?
*interpretations may differ on weather or not the US "started" the war with Afghanistan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unsurprising. Bigot.
I didn't see much of it, cause I was puking my guts out, but this made me scoff a bit. This is what inner city public schools have been trying to do for the last thirty years.
[OT]Sorry to hear that you're sick moultano.
Aka "Keep dem gawd dayum ****-mo-sexuals outta our saycred marriage system that doesn't work 50% of the time."
*interpretations may differ on weather or not the US "started" the war with Afghanistan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Enough of this. I'm tired of liberals using that kind of twisted analogy. Do you think Chamberlain was some kind of hero because he did nothing to stop the National Socialists, and should be cheered for holding off war until the last gasp? Do you think Clinton was a dirty dog for using violence in Kosovo? Do you think the Vietnamese need to be punished for starting war with Pol Pot? Do you think our Governments are hypocrits for preaching non-violence, because cops use violence all the time to enforce justice? What about those horrible warmongers who want to use force to make the Sudanese end the massacre?
You dont even deny his enemy in both cases was pure evil, distilled and refined into the perfect, vile opponent. So GWB went to war in both cases against evil regimes. Both ex-regime countries just had their first successful forays into democracy, both elections had American (and native) soldiers standing guard against those who would do violence to the voters. That's a pretty damn positive message to be sending to today's youth - not that it will impact them in the slightest.
More to the point - how many thugs beat up women and children while thinking "Hey, if the President uses violence, it must be okay for me to". They dont - that much should be patently clear to anyone with even the loosest grip on reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unsurprising. Bigot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, the Democrat at home in his native enviroment, expressing his contempt for the principles of democracy. The majority of American voters do not want homosexuals to be given marital status. The majority of American voters do not want a minority of rich, old men, unelected by them, dictating what is acceptable or not in their own society. Interestingly enough, that's what many of the first American colonists left Europe to escape from - seems they still dont like it.
Democracy getting you down? Want a change from all this "Will of the People" garbage?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench — and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what the anti-democratic Democrats desperately dont want. Judicial nominee getting voted on by the Senate. Why? Because the Senate represents the American voter - and they know the voter isnt backing them.
Not being allowed to marry when you're g4y? Pretty rough stuff init? You arent even allowed to be g4y in America. Oh wait, you can. You aint even allowed to be queer on TV.... oh wait. You arent allowed to go to school with the non-queers.... oh wait. You arent allowed to live with your g4y partner... oh wait. You arent allowed to go to the same diners with the straights... oh wait. But all that means nothing so long as you cant marry - you're oppressed, and GWB is a g4yhating bigot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't see much of it, cause I was puking my guts out, but this made me scoff a bit. This is what inner city public schools have been trying to do for the last thirty years<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a question for you - why the last 30 years? What changed between now and then that has allowed the rise of this kind of behaviour in our schools. You know what my answer will be, I'm interested in your explaination.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students. Now we must demand better results from our high schools, so every high school diploma is a ticket to success. We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. And we'll make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants. (Applause.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget the 200,000 number. I'm happy to hear he's focussing on Community Colleges in this speech as he did during his campaign. As a CC alumni, I can say they do an excellent job of training for real world work environments. There has been a stigma attached to them for years. It's time for that to end.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage -- (applause) -- and more control over their health decisions. (Applause.) I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor country, improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees -- (applause) -- expanded health savings accounts -- (applause) -- and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need. (Applause.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The community health centers sound like a good idea but they also sound expensive. Maybe with a link between them and nearby colleges who have medical training these centers could keep costs down. We'll have to watch this one closer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.) My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. (Applause.) And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.) Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy. (Applause.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reduce pollution and still make businesses happy? Tall order. We'll need more specifics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All these proposals are essential to expand this economy and add new jobs -- but they are just the beginning of our duty. To build the prosperity of future generations, we must update institutions that were created to meet the needs of an earlier time. Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all. (Applause.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Long overdue and not likely to happen. This particular proposal is the bane of Washington. I can't wait to see them squirm over it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists. (Applause.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He will have trouble with this. It doesn't sound rigid enough. People want the leaking borders plugged. Period. After that, talk about worker programs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.) The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Applause.)
Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement -- and for them the system is sound and fiscally strong. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long. Benefits were much lower than they are today. And a half-century ago, about sixteen workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.
Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen 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. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.
So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.
I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a five-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (Applause.) You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.
Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.
I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. (Applause.) I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. (Applause.) We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.
As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. (Applause.) Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.
Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. (Applause.)
The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We'll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We'll make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We'll make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We'll make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And we'll make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.
Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans. (Applause.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes. You'll notice this portion is much larger. The Social Security debate might not be very interesting to this group for two reasons: a) age. 65 (67,69, 72?) is too far away to be concerned now. b) we've been hearing for years that we won't be getting the benefits that were supposed to be there so why bother.
SS was a massive part of the post Great Depression and Post WWII New Deal. The Security part being focal for workers concerned about the future. Today's workers don't share those great concerns-at least not at nearly the same degree. We have more money in the Stock Market, 401k plans, Employee Stock Ownership Plans, maybe a Pension. For us, SS would be little more than beer money. And, it would seem, the current generation who has the power to fix it, might not want to.
This particular battle will be nasty. I point to how the President stuck his finger in the eye of Congress last night:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, the proposed system already exists in Washington. But a good number of them don't want to give us the same option.
The rest is already being discussed here. For those concerned about the proposed Constitutional amendment for marriage, don't be. It won't happen. However, know that activists judges are in the cross-hairs. If they persist, you might see that amendment and much more.
That's all for now.
The parallels are not the same every time (and drawing from your obvious and flawed attempt at a parallel, when was it ever illegal to be black in the United States? And by the way, anti-sodomy laws have been being struck down) and so obvious fundies will lean back on the same BS as their arguments crumble. And they fall in the same way, giving ground an inch at a time as the old bigots die and rot, and their children come in, having been raised in a world that doesn't burn witches on the spot.
First 'no'. Then some die, and their kids are a bit more relaxed.
Then it becomes 'seperate but equal'. Which didn't work, by the way... if you recall history, people wanted equality, when they deserved it. Unless you feel that blacks should still be enslaved, and that women should still be chattel? Maybe chinese workers should still cost less than one of the railroad ties they're putting in? It isn't to the same level of abuse. Or at least... not to the same level of abuse as widespread as the previous.
In any case, then it becomes 'not in our town'. I'm hoping that we'll skip this one entirely, as it's possibly one of the messiest parts. And in this case, it will literally be turning brother against brother, in some instances.
After which it falls to the hold-outs... 'not in my back yard'.
And then it's only fashionable for the KKK to hate it, and anyone else suggesting that it should not be is an un-PC b**tard. I'm just hoping that I'll live to see it through.
Now then. As my opinion has run for a while, Bush is still a monkey. He's still reading canned lines, as I doubt the number of brain cells he snorted away on cocaine is in the minority... hell, I'm honestly surprised the retard can even read, much less occasionally get a sentence out without bollixing it up.
Afghanistan did jack squat to us to deserve being bombed... Again. Hell, weren't we still paying them not to grow opium? Or at least to not sell it here?
Iraq? Where are the WMDs, monkey-boy? Oh, am I hearing 'oil'? I'm sure it's well and good that you 'liberated' the country from a tyrant who wanted a nickel more a barrel, but it's so convenient that now all the fata**es in SUVs can putter around even more. It was an unjustified war. And I'm still just waiting... just WAITING to hear that the reason the Iraqis are 'flocking to the polls' is to vote to make the US bloody well *leave*, as we've agreed to if the vote goes that way, like we should have months ago.
Then again, all the voting machines are Diebolds, so Iraq gets to suffer through four more years of The Amazing Rando with the rest of us.
*interpretations may differ on weather or not the US "started" the war with Afghanistan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Enough of this. I'm tired of liberals using that kind of twisted analogy. Do you think Chamberlain was some kind of hero because he did nothing to stop the National Socialists, and should be cheered for holding off war until the last gasp? Do you think Clinton was a dirty dog for using violence in Kosovo? Do you think the Vietnamese need to be punished for starting war with Pol Pot? Do you think our Governments are hypocrits for preaching non-violence, because cops use violence all the time to enforce justice? What about those horrible warmongers who want to use force to make the Sudanese end the massacre?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush didn't even attempt a peacefull solution to the non-situation in Iraq. Despite that Bush appologists make the war out to be all about freeing the iraqui people, that was not what it was about was it? No, it was about making America safe from the Sadam threat (which he wasn't) and his WMDs (which there aren't, at least not the way it was made out to be). Thats why I find it so funny.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You dont even deny his enemy in both cases was pure evil, distilled and refined into the perfect, vile opponent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they're not. Hell, they aren't even as bad as hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So GWB went to war in both cases against evil regimes. Both ex-regime countries just had their first successful forays into democracy, both elections had American (and native) soldiers standing guard against those who would do violence to the voters. That's a pretty damn positive message to be sending to today's youth - not that it will impact them in the slightest. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I think it will. It tells them "You can acheive progress through violence".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More to the point - how many thugs beat up women and children while thinking "Hey, if the President uses violence, it must be okay for me to". They dont - that much should be patently clear to anyone with even the loosest grip on reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point taken, but I do think the US's total willingness to use force at the drop of a hat mgiht be a contributing factor to the crime rate amongst America's youth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unsurprising. Bigot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, the Democrat at home in his native enviroment,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IF YOU EVER CALL ME A DEMOCRAT AGAIN SO HELP ME GOD I WILL HUINT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU. I do not associate myself with any politicol party, hell, I didn't even vote for kerry.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->expressing his contempt for the principles of democracy. The majority of American voters do not want homosexuals to be given marital status.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suddenly democracy is about tyrany of majority?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The majority of American voters do not want a minority of rich, old men, unelected by them, dictating what is acceptable or not in their own society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why do they continue to elect rich old men (like say, president bush) to do just that?
Democracy getting you down? Want a change from all this "Will of the People" garbage?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench — and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what the anti-democratic Democrats desperately dont want. Judicial nominee getting voted on by the Senate. Why? Because the Senate represents the American voter - and they know the voter isnt backing them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not being allowed to marry when you're g4y? Pretty rough stuff init?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is when your lover is dying and you aren't even alowed to see them. For starters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of this depends on which polls you accept-- however:
A majority of the people in the United States also <i>don't</i> want the Constitution ammended to define marriage; a majority of the people in the United States support **** civil unions (here I'm adding the percentages who support marriage with those who support ONLY civil unions); a majority believe that abortion should be permitted in most cases (or, generally permitted with some restrictions).
I'm <b>sure</b> this will inform Bush's Judicial nominees.
Of course, if he pushes for action on something which only a minority of voters support, he isn't being a 'rich, old [man] . . . dictating what is acceptable or not in [our] society'-- he's a stand-up, go-it-alone cowboy, stickin' by his six guns 'an his principals an' not takin' no lip from nobodah!"
(By the way, 'privitization' of social security isn't polling well, which is why they're changing it-- the name, that is. Now it's 'personal accounts' and 'choice'. Yet he's still pushing strongly for it. What does that make him?)
Long live the will of the people! *
*<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'> (Unless I don't agree with it).</span>
Done and done. <a href='http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html' target='_blank'>read and weep</a>. Woman's Suffrage, 19th Amendment. <a href='http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html' target='_blank'>Scroll down to XIX</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-sixth Congress, on the 4th of June, 1919, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th of August, 1920, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Illinois, June 10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution of ratification June 17, 1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June 10, 1919; Kansas, June 16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16, 1919; Pennsylvania, June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas, June 28, 1919; Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas, July 28, 1919; Montana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919; Minnesota, September 8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah, October 2, 1919; California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919; North Dakota, December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919; Colorado, December 15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island, January 6, 1920; Oregon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920; Wyoming, January 27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey, February 9, 1920; Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920; New Mexico, February 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West Virginia, March 10, 1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August 18, 1920.
Ratification was completed on August 18, 1920.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut on September 14, 1920 (and that State reaffirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921; Delaware, March 6, 1923 (after having rejected it on June 2, 1920); Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected it on February 24, 1920, ratification certified on February 25, 1958); Virginia, February 21, 1952 (after having rejected it on February 12, 1920); Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected it on September 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969 (after having rejected it on January 28, 1920, ratification certified on August 22, 1973); Georgia, February 20, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 24, 1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1, 1920); North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after having rejected it on March 29, 1920). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ohhhh looky, activist judges everywhere. Oh wait... - it was the will of the people, the way things are <b>supposed</b> to work.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The parallels are not the same every time (and drawing from your obvious and flawed attempt at a parallel, when was it ever illegal to be black in the United States? And by the way, anti-sodomy laws have been being struck down) and so obvious fundies will lean back on the same BS as their arguments crumble. And they fall in the same way, giving ground an inch at a time as the old bigots die and rot, and their children come in, having been raised in a world that doesn't burn witches on the spot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whups - and you missed it. I integrated several forms of discrimination, not just slavery. Homosexuality is illegal in multiple Middle Eastern nations. My arguments, and my analogies, are looking pretty damn solid. I have no doubt you are correct in that anti-homosexuality advocates are a dying breed, and I promise you that we will die out, and eventually get no say in this. But that time is not yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First 'no'. Then some die, and their kids are a bit more relaxed.
Then it becomes 'seperate but equal'. Which didn't work, by the way... if you recall history, people wanted equality, when they deserved it. Unless you feel that blacks should still be enslaved, and that women should still be chattel? Maybe chinese workers should still cost less than one of the railroad ties they're putting in? It isn't to the same level of abuse. Or at least... not to the same level of abuse as widespread as the previous.
In any case, then it becomes 'not in our town'. I'm hoping that we'll skip this one entirely, as it's possibly one of the messiest parts. And in this case, it will literally be turning brother against brother, in some instances.
After which it falls to the hold-outs... 'not in my back yard'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I definately dont feel that blacks should be enslaved, nor women chattel - that was the point of my robust analogy. If you want to compare yourself to them now, then you have to be suffering the same things. You ain't, yet from the screaming its hard to believe. Homosexuals have everything but marriage rights - but they'll scream like they're being hunted down and killed till they get them. Now they're sore that the democratic shortcircuit that was their best hope is getting shut down.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And then it's only fashionable for the KKK to hate it, and anyone else suggesting that it should not be is an un-PC b**tard. I'm just hoping that I'll live to see it through.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You probably will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now then. As my opinion has run for a while, Bush is still a monkey. He's still reading canned lines, as I doubt the number of brain cells he snorted away on cocaine is in the minority... hell, I'm honestly surprised the retard can even read, much less occasionally get a sentence out without bollixing it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dislexia. He cant be that stupid if he passed at the university he attended - but I suppose for those of us in the tinfoil hat bridage, that was all just money and influence. But keep it up mate, its that sorta garbage that ensures the Democrat's futher turns in opposition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Afghanistan did jack squat to us to deserve being bombed... Again. Hell, weren't we still paying them not to grow opium? Or at least to not sell it here?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HA. Shoulda picked on Iraq, but lets do Afghanistan while we're at it. Afghanistan actively harboured, funded and encouraged terrorists. The Taliban brutally oppressed its inhabitants, and was widely hated by the people. The Americans came, the Taliban collapsed, and now they have had their first election. It takes a lot of illicit narcotics, or perhaps one dose of "insaneandoverpoweringhatredofgwbprecludingallrationalthought" to bring that up as a failure. And they are dealing with their opium problem. Here's a question for you, since your <b>such</b> a genius compared to GWB, how would you stop these poor farmers growing opium? Just use the army to bring them to a dead halt, arrest all the growers and burn the fields? There goes half your farming population, now they're all in prison, and their families starve, because they needed the money to live. With a democratic government, they are slowly going to ensure that other methods of income are available, then they will crack down on the opium. But you didnt think of that - cause who needs to think when you have a rabid, passionate hate of Bush?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq? Where are the WMDs, monkey-boy? Oh, am I hearing 'oil'? I'm sure it's well and good that you 'liberated' the country from a tyrant who wanted a nickel more a barrel, but it's so convenient that now all the fata**es in SUVs can putter around even more. It was an unjustified war. And I'm still just waiting... just WAITING to hear that the reason the Iraqis are 'flocking to the polls' is to vote to make the US bloody well *leave*, as we've agreed to if the vote goes that way, like we should have months ago.
Then again, all the voting machines are Diebolds, so Iraq gets to suffer through four more years of The Amazing Rando with the rest of us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, leave a few months ago - what a great idea. For the criminally insane, who revel in the idea of a massive Iraqi bloodbath as US troops leave and the country tears itself apart in the resulting powervacuum. The war was justified - clearly. Your nation set him up, you put Saddam there, it was your responsibility to clean him up. You could have just lowered the oil embargo, and got your oil cheaper, but instead you did the job properly.
Your Diebold comment cracked me up - I hope you guys never learn.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush didn't even attempt a peacefull solution to the non-situation in Iraq. Despite that Bush appologists make the war out to be all about freeing the iraqui people, that was not what it was about was it? No, it was about making America safe from the Sadam threat (which he wasn't) and his WMDs (which there aren't, at least not the way it was made out to be). Thats why I find it so funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Attempt a peaceful solution? The only peaceful solution <b>leaves Saddam in charge</b> - which is callous and, seeing as you put him there, negligent. The only thing I have really cared about was the whole "freedom" business. Prewar I was convinced that even if he didn't have WMD, Bush would plant them anyway, so it didnt really matter. I was just happy they were going to free the Iraqi's. Besides, if I have three items on my list, and the third happens to be the least important in my eyes, but still gets done - then whats wrong with that? Democracy for the Iraqi's was always on the menu.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But they're not. Hell, they aren't even as bad as hitler.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good Lord - a textbook example of the failure of the American schooling system to teach any sort of decent history. Either you are completely ignorant of the atrocities carried out by Hussein, or your bias against the war is so complete that it doesnt even matter any more. The difference between Hitler and Hussein was merely a matter of degree. The man who kills 10 and the man who kills 100 still get a life sentence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Point taken, but I do think the US's total willingness to use force at the drop of a hat mgiht be a contributing factor to the crime rate amongst America's youth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont. At all. Even slightly. America's social problems are completely unrelated to Government military action. You might want to have a closer peek at parenting and common morality - but thats just my idea of the root problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IF YOU EVER CALL ME A DEMOCRAT AGAIN SO HELP ME GOD I WILL HUINT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU. I do not associate myself with any politicol party, hell, I didn't even vote for kerry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely apologise. You have stated many times that you are not a Democrat, and it was stupid of me to say otherwise. Sorry.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Suddenly democracy is about tyrany of majority?
Then why do they continue to elect rich old men (like say, president bush) to do just that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not tyranny of the majority. Democracy is about ensuring that the majority gets to decide on what happens, but also ensuring that those who disagree are not persecuted for it, but are allowed to protest and lobby against anything they disagree with. They have to live with the fact that they are in the minority - these are simple democratic principles, tried and true. They continued to elect rich old men who support their views for the same reason a 5 year old gets his mother to buy him an icecream - thats how you recieve what you want in a democracy, by a) being in the majority, and b) electing a government offical to implement what you want.
The majority of American voters do not want a minority of rich, old men, <b>unelected</b> by them, dictating what is acceptable or not in their own society.
That unelected by them is what that entire statement hinges on. If the majority didnt vote for it, then they dont want it. Democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is when your lover is dying and you aren't even alowed to see them. For starters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats wrong, and should be changed. Australians managed to get that part right. You can get the exact same rights as a hetero couple, but you cant marry or adopt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A lot of this depends on which polls you accept-- however:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are only two polls I am going by - both from the election, neither 100% conclusive. Voters chose GWB by increased margins - they knew homosexual marriage was on his agenda. In all the states where an additional vote on homosexual marriage was added on, that vote polled no by some massive margins. It looks to me like the American voter, the only American's that matter in this case, dont want it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A majority of the people in the United States also don't want the Constitution ammended to define marriage; a majority of the people in the United States support **** civil unions (here I'm adding the percentages who support marriage with those who support ONLY civil unions); a majority believe that abortion should be permitted in most cases (or, generally permitted with some restrictions).
I'm sure this will inform Bush's Judicial nominees.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those polls represent every American - and I'm not interested in every American. I'm only interested in the 50% odd that vote, they are all that matter in a democracy. Those judicial nominees should vote as the American voters would have them, and Im convinced that is for an Amendment confirming marriage as between a man and a woman.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if he pushes for action on something which only a minority of voters support, he isn't being a 'rich, old [man] . . . dictating what is acceptable or not in [our] society'-- he's a stand-up, go-it-alone cowboy, stickin' by his six guns 'an his principals an' not takin' no lip from nobodah!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not a poll driven President - and thats something that I find attractive in the man. If he does something that the majority doesnt like, then they'll just vote him out and get the next guy to change it. That's normal, and healthy. You cannot do that with activist judges, you have to wait till the old buggers die, and then pray you're President is in at the time so he can appoint some new guys to change it, maybe. Its not a democratic method of determining these matters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(By the way, 'privitization' of social security isn't polling well, which is why they're changing it-- the name, that is. Now it's 'personal accounts' and 'choice'. Yet he's still pushing strongly for it. What does that make him?)
Long live the will of the people! *
* (Unless I don't agree with it).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm always a bit dismissive of general polls because they include non-voters, but still, they knew his platform included privitization of social security, they voted for him, and now they're gonna get it. The will of the people isnt always right, but democracy is based around the assumption that it is usually right. It is not based around the assumption that a few guys with a bee in their bonnet, unelected by the people, will make rulings that oppose the will of the majority.
So you can get the exact same rights as a hetero couple.... except you can't, because you can't marry or adopt? But of course.. that doesn't matter for some reason, because they've got all those other rights?
It's not a 'tinfoil hat bridge'. He was a legacy. He got into Yale, graduated with a GPA that hovered in the mid seventies (and briefly flirted with the 80s, after taking a batch of pass/fail classes-- which don't usually impress grad schools) and somehow got into one of the most prestigious business schools in the country.
You can't wish everything away by calling it 'tin foil' business, especially when the evidence is stacked very much against it.
By way of comparison,<a href='http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/98/top25/statistics48.htm' target='_blank'>For the class of 2000</a>, the average Harvard Business school student entered with a 3.5 GPA (Note: I believe Bush's graduating GPA was at least a full point below that).
An aside, but an important one: To say that Bush made his way through these elite school as anything other than a beneficiary of affirmative action is laughable.
He's not 'stupid' at all, but he certainly wasn't ivy league material.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm always a bit dismissive of general polls because they include non-voters, but still, they knew his platform included privitization of social security, they voted for him, and now they're gonna get it. The will of the people isnt always right, but democracy is based around the assumption that it is usually right. It is not based around the assumption that a few guys with a bee in their bonnet, unelected by the people, will make rulings that oppose the will of the majority.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But now you're assuming that all voters are informed on the issues. Interestingly, a coworker saw me posting here and asked what the discussion was. I've spent the better part of the last twenty minutes explaining the basics of Social Security Privitization to him.
He voted for Bush.
So you can get the exact same rights as a hetero couple.... except you can't, because you can't marry or adopt? But of course.. that doesn't matter for some reason, because they've got all those other rights? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give that man a cookie. Spot on. They've got all they could ever want, save a specific title for couples, and the ability to adopt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not a 'tinfoil hat bridge'. He was a legacy. He got into Yale, graduated with a GPA that hovered in the mid seventies (and briefly flirted with the 80s, after taking a batch of pass/fail classes-- which don't usually impress grad schools) and somehow got into one of the most prestigious business schools in the country.
You can't wish everything away by calling it 'tin foil' business, especially when the evidence is stacked very much against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reread what I said - I stated that he passed, not that he gained entrance. I can more than imagine him getting leverage to actually enter the school, I find it harder to imagine they let him cheat to pass. And hell, if you are going to cheat, why not just give him outstanding grades?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But now you're assuming that all voters are informed on the issues. Interestingly, a coworker saw me posting here and asked what the discussion was. I've spent the better part of the last twenty minutes explaining the basics of Social Security Privitization to him.
He voted for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe I can match you, liberal to conservative, man for man, woman for woman, on ignorance and issues.
Unless such a study exists, this is a very weak card to play - actively trying to blame GWB for other people beating their families. I just don't see the connection.
I think you missed my point, because they haven't got "all they could ever want" because they don't have that title *or* the ability to adopt...
Talesin, as a fellow Admin and Bush-disliker, I ask that if you're going to list off things about the current president in the way you just have, <i>please</i> try to more lucidly make a connection to the thread's intended topic of discussion. We've already seen what often needs to happen to threads that discuss nothing but Bush's history.
All others: try to get back on-topic.
noooo - I've been violated! This isnt democracy! This is a conspiracy to shut me down! this goes all the way to top! Soros put you up to this! vengeance will be m.....
Excellent-- so then you agree with me, that a 'vote' isn't necessarily a good barometer about where a person stands on issues.
(Also, I've never heard anyone criticize Bush for cheating his way through school; most of the criticism I've seen is associated with his entrance. As I said, I don't think he's stupid, but I also don't think that passing at an Ivy league school means he's brilliant. Getting <i>in</i> is the hard part, but I'd imagine anyone who could get into a decent school would be able to <i>pass</i> there, given the effort).
Excellent-- so then you agree with me, that a 'vote' isn't necessarily a good barometer about where a person stands on issues.
(Also, I've never heard anyone criticize Bush for cheating his way through school; most of the criticism I've seen is associated with his entrance. As I said, I don't think he's stupid, but I also don't think that passing at an Ivy league school means he's brilliant. Getting <i>in</i> is the hard part, but I'd imagine anyone who could get into a decent school would be able to <i>pass</i> there, given the effort). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh, its definately not perfect. Reasa likes Bush, but hes pro-abortion and pro-homosexualityliberalisationmathingy, so its clear that not all vote for Bush because they stand 100% behind his agenda. However, there really is no better way of determining these sorts of things, so I think that vote polling is the best, if clearly imperfect, method of determining what the electorate wants.
Yes, his graduation is not what makes him outstanding - but passing means that he cant be as completely stupid as a lot of people try and make him out to be.
Could someone explain to me what exactly is the huge problem with letting people take out a percentage of their own wages and invest them wisely?
I'm currently too busy to launch it, but it's more appropriate to discuss that one on its own, rather than completely derail this thread.
Suppose I should delete everything that I wrote earlier I guess. Go figure.
Suppose I should delete everything that I wrote earlier I guess. Go figure. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edit: Apparently I have been shot down on that idea. Proceed. And quit being such a fussy Prima Donna.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I see my earnings as my own damn money, for me to invest or save as I want, so the idea resonates with me quite well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why not just a payroll tax cut leading ot a phaseout then? That would be what makes sense if this were REALLY the agenda. But, in fact, it's not. Let's keep some things in mind here:
1) Bush's talk about the fact that SS was doomed wasn't just a flat out lie, it was presented as the justification for a plan that has litteraly NOTHING to do with fixing that problem! Private accounts don't do anything for the current benefit/payer crunch: and since they cost money to start, they actually sort of make that problem worse
2) The plan isn't what it sounds. The government still basically controls and invests your money for you, and instead of guaranteed benefits, you bear all the risk.
If we actually wanted to fix SS, it wouldn't take much: some minor benefit cuts, or a very slight incease in the payroll tax. End of story. Most of Congress, Republican and Democrat was ready to do this anyway: it seemed like a bipartisan no-brainer. But apparently someone decided that the issue would be better as a wedge to use to create partisan bitterness, as well a dishonestly sell private accounts, even though they have nothing to do with fixing the crisis.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Could someone explain to me what exactly is the huge problem with letting people take out a percentage of their own wages and invest them wisely?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing. But that's not what's being discussed anyway, so what?
I thought Bush's rather direct comments to Egypt and Saudi Arabia were a big turn around, especially Saudi Arabia. I haven’t liked the Saudis since I can remember and I'm glad, to spite his relationship with the royal family, he’s starting to bring down the hammer. As for Egypt, as far as I'm concerned that country should be a territory of Israel right now so any kind of democratic reform there will naturally have my full support.
I also noticed he pledged our support to Iran if the people decide to get the ball rolling, so to speak. I disagree with a war in Iran, as I have vocalized here many times, for the sole reason that we do not have the men or the money to accomplish a victory there without support from the people. The full and unconditional support of the Iranian people is key for success in Iran, and if Bush can get that, and they start a revolt, I feel we are obligated to help bring democracy to the people of Iran as well. How well this can be done remains to be seen.
I imagine over time as Iraq and Afghanistan continue to blossom, two flourishing democracy’s on ether side of a dicta-theocracy, or what ever you would call Iran, will spark a revolution among the Iranian youth. That will be the time to act but not a moment before.
I should make it quite clear that there is largely one reason I support Bush. I believe he is the one man with the right vision and enough will power to bring democracy to the Middle East, something I believe in very firmly, and takes precedence over most other issues for me.
I do however completely disagree with Bush policy regarding America’s southern border. Unfortunately Bush continues to ignore what most Americans want and that is a much tougher border. I personally, and I often catch flack for this; want a complete shutdown of the border, other then the necessary travel/trade routes.
I really don't think the best solution is to make it easier for illegal immigrants to come into this country and work. I think a better solution is to force the companies that hire the illegals to pay all workers minimum wage so Americans who need jobs can make a living (even if a meager one) off of these jobs. I also think we should be using the National Guard troops from the Border States to patrol the borders and immediately deport all illegals back to Mexico.
This is probably my biggest disagreement with Bush, and many, many other conservatives and Americans feel this way to.
Seriously, I can't discern any difference between having a portion of my money taken from my paycheck and into this private account, and just taking that same piece of my paycheck and saving it in my own normal bank account. Except of course I can't touch the money until I retire. Privatized social security turns a socialist program into a capitalist program. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, I just wish he would stop calling it a way to reform the SS system. If he privatizes it, he's not reforming it; he's scrapping the system and forcing working age Americans to not be idiots and set aside some money for later in life.
Also, privatized social security will do jack squat for people who normally receive money from social security but aren't of retirement age, for instance kids who've lost their parents receive benefits. Not anymore. I don't know all the ins and outs of the system, but I'm sure there are other groups who'll get screwed by this change.
That said, social security is definitely in need of a major overhaul. I've thought about it, and none of the possible solutions that I've heard of will either do enough to fix the problem, or will impact our seniors too much. Someone wiser than I in economic matters will have to solve this. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ahahahahah. You'd accept that would you? We're going to cut taxes, and then phase out Social Security? That's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. You'd be hardpressed gettting anyone to agree to that. Social security is good because it ensures that most people have a fallback if things go bad for them at work. Let's be really generous and assume that if you cut taxes and phase out social security, roughly 50% of people are smart enough to save/invest that money for a rainy day. What happens to the other 50% of people who dont? Out on the street for them. Shockingly bad idea.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's keep some things in mind here:
1) Bush's talk about the fact that SS was doomed wasn't just a flat out lie, it was presented as the justification for a plan that has litteraly NOTHING to do with fixing that problem! Private accounts don't do anything for the current benefit/payer crunch: and since they cost money to start, they actually sort of make that problem worse
2) The plan isn't what it sounds. The government still basically controls and invests your money for you, and instead of guaranteed benefits, you bear all the risk.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Disclaimer - I know little about US Social Security, so this is all stuff I have gathered in about 30 min of google browsing.
I would have thought it was selfevident that SS is doomed. <a href='http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/tanner-050114.html' target='_blank'>CATO</a> seems to make a lot of sense:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->President Bush has made it clear that reforming Social Security is one of his top priorities for his second term. Battle lines are forming among supporters and opponents of his proposal to allow younger workers to invest privately a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts. At times the debate can seem mind-numbingly complex, full of arcane actuarial terms and competing claims about insolvency and rates of return.
But underneath all the noise, there are only a few things that Americans need to know in order to understand the Social Security crisis.
First, the current Social Security system is what is known as a "pay-as-you-go" system. It is not a savings or investment system, but a simple transfer from workers to retirees. The payroll taxes from each generation of workers are not saved or invested for that generation's retirement, but are used to pay benefits for those already retired. The current generation of workers must then hope that when their retirement comes, the next generation of workers will pay the taxes to support their benefits, and so on.
Obviously, a pay-as-you-go system is very sensitive to the number of people paying in versus the number of people collecting benefits. In other words, the ratio of workers to retirees is crucial to the financing of the current system.
The current worker-to-retiree demographics in the United States spell trouble for Social Security and its ability to keep up with its promised benefits. People are having smaller families resulting in fewer new workers paying taxes into Social Security. And seniors are living longer and collecting benefits for many more years. Add to this the fact that the Baby Boom generation is about to retire and you end up with far, far fewer workers than retirees than when Social Security started.
In 1950, there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree.
Fewer workers for more retirees mean each worker bears an increasing financial burden to pay the benefits that Social Security has promised. The original Social Security tax was just 2 percent on the first $3,000 that a worker earned, a maximum tax of $60 per year. By 1960, payroll taxes had risen to 6 percent. Today's workers pay a payroll tax of 12.4 percent.
It is going to get much worse. In order to continuing funding retiree benefits, the payroll tax will have to be raised to more than 18 percent. That's nearly a 50 percent increase.
Let's look at that financial burden another way. The Social Security payroll tax is already 12.4 percent of wages, or one eighth of a worker's total annual wages. It is the biggest tax the average household must pay. Roughly 80 percent of American families pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income taxes.
Despite that already huge tax burden, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly half in order to continue paying Social Security benefits. That's a terrible burden to impose on our children and grandchildren.
The only way out of this problem is to change Social Security from a pay-as-you-go model to a system based on savings and investment. That is why President Bush wants to allow younger workers to begin saving some of their Social Security taxes. Those who disagree have an obligation to tell the rest of us how they would deal with the grim demographic reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we actually wanted to fix SS, it wouldn't take much: some minor benefit cuts, or a very slight incease in the payroll tax. End of story. Most of Congress, Republican and Democrat was ready to do this anyway: it seemed like a bipartisan no-brainer. But apparently someone decided that the issue would be better as a wedge to use to create partisan bitterness, as well a dishonestly sell private accounts, even though they have nothing to do with fixing the crisis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got anything to back that up? I'm not asking because I think you dont, I'm quite sure that the supporters of the current bloat have their own set of facts and figures.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Could someone explain to me what exactly is the huge problem with letting people take out a percentage of their own wages and invest them wisely?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing. But that's not what's being discussed anyway, so what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's really what I'd prefer actually. Forcing a certain amount of money to be given to a company of the clients choice, then invested for them. That is how superannuation works here in Australia, and its been an unmigitated success. The Government has been phasing out the old age pensions by automatically deducting pay and rerouting it to a superannuation firm of their choice, when then invest it. It has proceeded nicely with very few of the dire predictions about rampant loses due to "investors speculating/gambling on the stockmarket" actually coming true. I'm not so thrilled about the Government choosing where you have to invest, because Governments are notorious losers at that kind of thing.
First you claim that we have to give people choice, because it's liberty and freedom and all that, and now you're claiming people are too stupid to be trusted to manage their own money. Which is it? Because the logic doesn't make any sense.
In case you didn't know, the idea of phasing out SS entirely is actually what many conservatives actually want. Partial privatization is just their compromise that they hope doesn't sound so extreme that the public will revolt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not so thrilled about the Government choosing where you have to invest, because Governments are notorious losers at that kind of thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the people that wrote this part of your post need to sit down and have a serious discussion with whomever wrote the first part of your post. Because they are obviously not on the same page.
Let's be really generous and assume that if you cut taxes and phase out social security, roughly 50% of people are smart enough to save/invest that money for a rainy day. What happens to the other 50% of people who dont? Out on the street for them. Shockingly bad idea.
First you claim that we have to give people choice, because it's liberty and freedom and all that, and now you're claiming people are too stupid to be trusted to manage their own money. Which is it? Because the logic doesn't make any sense.
In case you didn't know, the idea of phasing out SS entirely is actually what many conservatives actually want. Partial privatization is just their compromise that they hope doesn't sound so extreme that the public will revolt.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was saying that given the choice, 50 % of people will make a Good Decision and that 50 % of people will make a Bad Decision, and that in his opinion, the point of a social program like Social Security is to "send a check no matter how bad you are at finances."
I actually do enjoy the idea of Social Security being phased out completely, but I also know that many people would make dumb choices and end up on the street without the kind of basic financial aid that Social Security gives. The system does need an incredible amount of reform though, and a conservative in the helm is the exact person I want to be in charge of it.