A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They're not nonsense, because he also has reforms that would help solvency, independent of privatization, no? E.g., reducing the growth rate of benefits.

That's the other shoe, which we've heard little about. What bothers me is that up until now, I don't think we've heard much of anything from the Administration other than the assertion that private accounts would solve this problem for us. If I understand it correctly, Bush has tossed out some older Dem proposals on that issue, leaving it to Congress to try to solve the hard part while he hits the hustings to evangelize private accounts.

That said, my biggest problem is this: I don't want to pay twice. Once to give people money to invest for their retirement. A second time when they fuck it up and we still have to give them something in retirement.

Agreed.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And this, my commie friend, is why you will remain the minority party in the near future.

If this is the case, then Bush should stop his speech in Arkansas today to come out and say, "you know what? This entitlement is too expensive, will run out of money someday, and government shouldn't give it to you anyway. Instead, you should have [cue music]."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's the other shoe, which we've heard little about. What bothers me is that up until now, I don't think we've heard much of anything from the Administration other than the assertion that private accounts would solve this problem for us. If I understand it correctly, Bush has tossed out some older Dem proposals on that issue, leaving it to Congress to try to solve the hard part while he hits the hustings to evangelize private accounts.

If you wanted to fix the system, you'd strike a bipartisan deal to increase the payroll tax some, increase the cap on income subject to the tax some, and curb future benefits some. You'd get enough votes from both parties to give everyone cover. To get there, you'd have to go with incremental change, and compromise.

Needless to say, that's not what this White House is interested in.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you wanted to fix the system, you'd strike a bipartisan deal to increase the payroll tax some, increase the cap on income subject to the tax some, and curb future benefits some. You'd get enough votes from both parties to give everyone cover. To get there, you'd have to go with incremental change, and compromise.

Needless to say, that's not what this White House is interested in.

Cheer up. If you're right, Hillary will have the chance to solve the problem in 4 years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Cheer up. If you're right, Hillary will have the chance to solve the problem in 4 years.

The next President is going to have much more immediate problems to worry about, such as Medicare and the massive Bush deficits.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ok, the counting is not done but the Islamic al-Sistani party appears heading for an absolute majority in Iraq. There is some chance that the first Democratically elected Islamic state in the Middle East is about to emerge in Iraq.

Assuming al-Sistani's folks end up with control of a majority in Parliament, and the ability to get to 2/3 without allying with Allawi (which also looks possible), so they can cut a deal where the Kurds get autonomy and they get an Islamic state, what should we do?

My thoughts about possible options (pick several):

(1) assume it will all work out and continue as we are (assumed temporary military presence, turn over full control of domestic affairs to the new government, keep training the Iraqi police and armed forces);
(2) assume we have to work hard and negotiate to build an alliance with al-Sistani, knowing that his people think of us as utterly untrustworthy (remember, we encouraged them to revolt and then let them get slaughtered in the first war) and this will be a long hard road; put everything about our continued role in Iraqi on the table for negotiation in a proceeding that is assumed to be adversarial;
(3) ensure continued military presence for a long time, perhaps even forcing a permanent military facility (or multiple facilities) on Iraqi soil;
(4) make sure there is adequate leadership for each faction to facilitate a future 3-way split of the country, knowing we can get one good ally (Kurdistan) and hoping for at least two;
(5) play ball with more old Baathists to strengthen the Sunni hand, but not go so far as to actively pull in the current insurgents;
(6) assume the political game is now an all-Iraqi game and do our best to make sure American businesses have significant freedom to operate in Iraq, counting on capitalism to slowly change the underlying dynamics;
(7) undermine al-Sistani in every possible way, maximizing the use of every "stick" we have to make it clear that he can manage the roads and hospitals but is not in a position to turn Iraq into an Islamic state or dictate its foreign policy; this option could include starting to actively work with and support some of the insurgents.

Any other choices? So which of these policies should Bush follow if Sistani gains a majority?

(note: I'm trying to be purely analytical, not partisan - it's just a position we may find ourselves in a couple weeks from now and I'm curious how others would handle it).

No takers from anyone on this? Am I the only one who thinks we need to figure this out?

[Replaced_Texan]

The toy version



I think bad things would happen should this ever come into my possession.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you care about the numbers, just go back to my original post to get them right:

"The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

For a fifty-year projection, that's not bad. But the bigger point is that Bush was telling people that Social Security has problems no one could have anticipated in the 1930s -- in fact, they did anticipate that people would live longer, and slightly overestimated the effect.

Then you list a bunch of other things they might not have predicted. Whatever. I think we all agree that Social Security needs to be tweaked to accommodate changed circumstances. I have no problem with telling people to work a little longer before they get benefits. But the fact remains that Bush has an ideological goal of ending Social Security, and to that end said something that wasn't true.

the only fact proven in this is that you don't understand basic math.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the only fact proven in this is that you don't understand basic math.

Well, I can't really argue with that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're rich and coastal, ergo....

I'll confess, I thought calling someone who supports social security a commie went out in the 30s, but you never know.

It's not the support, its thinking that the solution to every problem is more funding . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the crisis is that we're going to be short some money in 2052, how does borrowing trillions of dollars now help end the crisis?

Hint: It doesn't, and the White House's apparent recognition of that fact was the very point of the three paragraphs you posted yesterday from the LA Times.

eta:

The paragraphs immediately before the ones you quoted make this even more clear:

• A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.
  
  That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.
  
  "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

LA Times, via Drum

He wants to fix the crisis and he wants personal accounts. I gave a possible answer to how personal accounts can be used to answer the solvency question, but had no takers on that one.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The toy version



I think bad things would happen should this ever come into my possession.

What does the hammer signify??

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the only fact proven in this is that you don't understand basic math.

mmmm, meth

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The toy version



I think bad things would happen should this ever come into my possession.

I somehow thought you were the kind of girl who would like a coin-operated boy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He wants to fix the crisis and he wants personal accounts. I gave a possible answer to how personal accounts can be used to answer the solvency question, but had no takers on that one.

Please explain.