The W
Views: 99075412
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.9.07 1704
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - State of the Union Address
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(393 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 904/1083
EXP: 2382152
For next: 79712

Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 904 days
Last activity: 875 days
#21 Posted on 4.2.05 1419.01
Reposted on: 4.2.12 1419.18
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
      Atrios found four times where Republicans booed Clinton's SOTU at one time or another in the 90's.

      /Just sayin'.
    Yeah. And that wasn't any better. Point?



    Originally posted by Grimis
    The inane, disrespectful booing during the speech is a microcosm of the Democratics problem. They have parlayed hate of the man onto the hate and disrespect of the insitution. They are an embarrasament to Congress.


Last comment on this:

It's your use of context on this Grimis; if you would have included "that we've seen on both the Democratic and Republican sides," I'd let it go -- but you didn't.

And by the way, Atrios did list his sources (i.e. The AP) when he quoted the four times the Republicans booed Clinton's SOTU speech.

EDIT:
    Originally posted by Various sources via Atrios


    1999: Republicans Booed Clinton's Entrance
    Many Republican lawmakers gave him a cool, though not impolite, reception.
    There were a smattering of boos when Clinton first entered the House
    chamber, but they were quickly drowned out by applause. Some Republicans
    barely applauded, or refused at all to clap.
    [Boston Herald, 1/20/99]


    1998: Republicans Booed Clinton's Medicare Proposal
    ... Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare to allow
    Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of "no" and some
    boos from Republicans during his speech. [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]


    1997: Republican's Booed Clinton's Opposition to the Balanced Budget Amendment
    The Republican response was far warmer than perhaps any of Clinton's
    previous four State of the Union speeches. Time after time, Republicans
    jumped to their feet to join Democrats in applauding the president. Only
    once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval--when
    Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to
    balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed. [LA Times,
    2/5/97]


    1995: Republicans Booed Clinton and Walked Out During Speech
    The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible
    throughout the president's State of the Union address - from the moment
    Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often
    greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20
    of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes. [AP,
    1/24/95]



(edited by Teppan-Yaki on 4.2.05 1423)
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 357/810
EXP: 1517816
For next: 59739

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
#22 Posted on 4.2.05 2059.49
Reposted on: 4.2.12 2100.02
My whole problem with what Bush is proposing is that it puts people's security into a system that's even more complex than the current social security system. Most people in the country have no clue how the market works - and those who think they know are often completely wrong. Only a select few would really be able to take advantage.

And really, it's not even about losing money, but about earning at a steady rate - at least enough to get you through retirement. Even people don't lose the account, will the earnings on it even be enough to sustain them - and how do you guarantee that such a system will provide security for the generations that need it.

Most people in this country do not own stocks. They have no clue what they are getting into with this kind of program.


This is not entirely true. The system, in its current iteration, will not provide for people under 55, unless they pay higher taxes or accept fewer benefits (this is true for people over 56 as well, but to a much lesser extent). There are differences of opinion about the timing and the degree of this, we can quibble about when the system will be facing problems, but the fact is that social security will have to be changed in some way, shape or form.

As far as the majority not owning stock, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Finance Survey, 51.9 percent of households own stock directly or indirectly (such as through mutual funds, 401k, etc.). This number is growing rapidly; I believe it was under 25 percent in the early 1980s, but I don't know that exact number offhand. Moreover, if people don't want to control their account, then they don't have to do it. And, I would guess that the government would limit the accounts so that people can't just gamble blindly. Instead, they'd be choosing from diversified funds picked by professionals. To be frank, that last sentence scares me more than anything else I've read about changing social security. However, 20 countries have introduced an element of privatization into their retirement programs, so there are definitely enough successes and failures to put something good together. We'll see if that stands a chance in hell of surviving the political process.

I guess that what I would like to see is trading off optional private accounts (which can be controlled, passed down, etc.) by inserting some type of means testing for the remainder (i.e. the part of the program that remains a pay-as-you-go system) so the portion tagged as Uncle Sam's money functions more as a true social program that works to help those who really need the money. At the same time, some of the money remains for the person who paid the taxes.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1706/1759
EXP: 4911855
For next: 81015

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on 4.2.05 2154.38
Reposted on: 4.2.12 2155.44
I wouldn't mind seeing the retirement age (for the purposes of Social Security) go up. I mean, really, it is a luxury - Americans have never been ENTITLED to a retirement on the government's dime. When the program was first implemented, most people were lucky to live long enough to collect on it.

The system was just never designed, nor intended to be a retirement account for the last decade or so of someone's life. It was meant for those people who couldn't afford to ever retire, to provide for them when they were physically too old to work any longer. Something designed to help a very few who really needed it, that became perverted into something that everyone felt was their right.

Heck, if someone presents a plan that pushes the retirement age to 75 or over, implements a means testing so that not everyone can draw the benefit - they could remove the private accounts and I would still support it.

But if the plan is to make-over Social Security so that it is a retirement program for all, I would rather see even more privatization than the little bit Bush is proposing.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 501/2263
EXP: 7307921
For next: 161020

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
#24 Posted on 5.2.05 1544.08
Reposted on: 5.2.12 1544.37
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    As far as the majority not owning stock, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Finance Survey, 51.9 percent of households own stock directly or indirectly (such as through mutual funds, 401k, etc.). This number is growing rapidly; I believe it was under 25 percent in the early 1980s, but I don't know that exact number offhand.


Thanks for that stat - I wasn't aware of that. Although I was deliberately not including 401ks - but my understanding is that 401ks are very questionable as a stable retirement plan. Not only do most folks not control their own accounts, but adjustments for inflation were based on the market - not necessarily the rate increase of the cost of living. And a lot of the hoopla around 401ks came about during the dot.com era when everyone was reveling in the bull market.

But that wasn't the point.

Most people who own stock as part of a retirement plan have little to know clue about how their money is being invested and whether or not the investments are earning at a rate that will be adequate enough to provide for them when they retire.


Somehow, the rate of growth needs to be better than the cost of living increase - 2.7% just isn't going to cut it. Most savings accounts have a better rate than that.

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Moreover, if people don't want to control their account, then they don't have to do it. And, I would guess that the government would limit the accounts so that people can't just gamble blindly. Instead, they'd be choosing from diversified funds picked by professionals. To be frank, that last sentence scares me more than anything else I've read about changing social security.


Ditto. It was the professionals who were recommending Enron stock a month before the whole company tanked.

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    I guess that what I would like to see is trading off optional private accounts (which can be controlled, passed down, etc.) by inserting some type of means testing for the remainder (i.e. the part of the program that remains a pay-as-you-go system) so the portion tagged as Uncle Sam's money functions more as a true social program that works to help those who really need the money. At the same time, some of the money remains for the person who paid the taxes.


There's nothing that I object to here. I'd be interested in seeing how your numbers work out - just for fun.


(edited by Leroy on 5.2.05 1344)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 3224/6009
EXP: 31824935
For next: 642592

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#25 Posted on 5.2.05 1854.16
Reposted on: 5.2.12 1856.18
Just out of curiousity, besides the Rich Dad Poor Dad guy, who is questioning 401k as a retirement device?

I know there are some of the Bond guys (not the movies, the guys in investing who only want you to buy bonds or stocks with dividends) that mutter about this occasionally, but on the whole the 401k thing doesn't seem like a scam to me.

I'm interested to see why other people here believe it.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: WWE/Canadian Gov't Present Annoying PSAs
Next thread: PTC labels MTV as smut peddlers
Previous thread: Great news on the Stem Cell front
(393 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - State of the Union AddressRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.254 seconds.