Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ok. Start here.

Despite what NRO might suggest, there's just pages and pages of this shit to read out there.

My favorite:

• As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.

So, how does this "save" social security?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
My favorite:

• As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.

So, how does this "save" social security?

No lockbox? How unoriginal.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by bilmore
Umm . . . . did you forget to put on your socks?

Uh, I don't have any socks. But if I did, they would be better looking than me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
Uh, I don't have any socks. But if I did, they would be better looking than me.

Sorry, thought you were someone else.

As to the infamous premium rebate plan, I repeat that Kerry's position is simply that he will provide insurance for all. (Didn't I already say that?) The premium rebate plan is simply a longwinded explanation that he will pay for it. Excuse me - we will pay for it. Lots.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
My favorite:

• As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.

So, how does this "save" social security?

Well, it doesn't rule out means testing. And my memory is fuzzy on this, but doesn't the Social Security tax only apply to the first $80,000 of income? Removing the cap wouldn't be the same as increasing the tax.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
Removing the cap wouldn't be the same as increasing the tax.

Read that again. Think of someone currently capped.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry, thought you were someone else.

As to the infamous premium rebate plan, I repeat that Kerry's position is simply that he will provide insurance for all. (Didn't I already say that?) The premium rebate plan is simply a longwinded explanation that he will pay for it. Excuse me - we will pay for it. Lots.

So, the answer is that he has a position (universal coverage), but that you don't like it. Or, maybe that you don't like how he proposes to pay for it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
Removing the cap wouldn't be the same as increasing the tax.

And, this my friends, is why I don't trust Dems with tax policy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No lockbox? How unoriginal.

Fair point. If nothing else, GWB's Soc Sec plan has flair. It's part of the "ownership society," in which you would have the opportunity to lose your social security in the stock market.

From Kinsley:

Social Security. Here, the "ownership society" solution is a simple mathematical fraud. The concept: Government lets you keep some portion of the taxes you now pay into the Social Security trust fund, you invest those dollars and end up with more than you would have in the form of government benefits, and then (the rarely mentioned third step) your Social Security benefits are cut because you're doing so well. Basically, the idea is that profits on private investments will close the gap between projected Social Security revenues and payments.

The problem is this: The money in the Social Security trust fund is invested in government bonds. This money helps to finance the deficit. Every dollar of Social Security tax revenue that gets siphoned away to private retirement accounts would require the government to borrow one more dollar from the private sector in some other way. Of course, the government could also spend less, but (as with tax simplification) it could also just spend less and not bother with Social Security privatization. Privatization by itself doesn't add to the total pool of capital in the economy or reduce the amount claimed by the government.

So where will the extra money for Social Security come from? From greater economic growth? Nothing about Social Security privatization even theoretically increases economic growth. Millions of small investors, many with no experience, are suddenly making decisions previously made by professionals. Will this make the economy more efficient, or less so?

If Social Security privatization won't make the economy any larger, or reduce the amount claimed by the government, how can it produce extra cash to close the Social Security revenue gap? Only by taking money out of the capital pool for private investment. This is what privatization enthusiasts actually assume.

They say that investing Social Security funds in stocks will raise more money because stocks pay a better long-run return than government bonds. If they are right, such a bonanza used for Social Security benefits would mean less money invested in the private economy — and slower growth, a poorer future. Which wouldn't be good.

But they can't be right. Their theory assumes that morons would step in and buy government bonds, even as stocks, with their higher returns, were being snapped up by Social Security recipients. Free market theory (which I thought these folks believed in) says supply and demand would make sure that the returns would soon be about the same. And Social Security would be back where it started.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, yeah, I forgot.

He's against gun control. Unless it's good gun control. Then he's for it, except if someone might write about it in the news. Then he's a hunter. Who shoots shotguns without plugs or glasses. (No wonder he thinks guns are unsafe.)

Oh, yeah, and he supports making teachers accountable. But, only to themselves, really. Unless he's speaking to the NEA, where he doesn't think teachers should have to justify themselves even to themselves. But we should institute merit pay. But no one should be looking to evaluate teachers already tenured.

And taxes - he's gonna make those rich bastards pay their fair share. But only the rich - no one who makes less than, say, $10,000 will see an increase in their taxes.

And Bush's great accomplishments over the last four years --

He invaded Iraq. He's decided recently to propose some stuff on education (we'll get the details later on), because that's important. Don't know why he didn't think of it sooner. By November he's hoping we'll be treading water on jobs, rather than being the first President since the great depression to preside over net job loss. Oh, and he invaded Iraq.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by bilmore
Read that again. Think of someone currently capped.

I am capped. I will pay more if the cap is removed or raised. That does not mean that my tax increased. It means that it isn't limited to a certain percentage of my income anymore, but applies to all of it (or to more of it, if they raise instead of remove it).

I agree, it's semantics. But let's look at it this way -- my state has a 5% sales tax on goods, but has a list of things that are exempt from the sales tax. Let's say that one of those things is pool chlorine. Let's say that I have a pool. Let's say that my state is having a budget shortfall, and they decide to tinker with the tax exemptions, but leave the rate alone. Pool chlorine is now subject to the 5% sales tax, and I now pay $10.50 for my bucket of chlorine tablets instead of $10.00. Has my tax increased?

[Gattigap]

So that's why the Bushies haven't trotted out OBL yet.

[Gattigap]

Bush camp quivers in fear of Third Debate. May "pull a Cheney" and seek deferment until, say, December (or perhaps have a baby).

[James] Baker negotiated debates in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. As chief of staff to Bush's father in 1992, he took a cautious stance with the view that a sitting president has little to gain and much to lose in debates, according to accounts at the time.

Bush aides refused to discuss their opening position. Officials familiar with the issue said he plans to accept the commission's first debate, which is to focus on domestic policy, and the third one, which is to focus on foreign policy.

The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.

"It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush. "They want two debates that are focused on clear differences on foreign and domestic policy. We benefit from the differences."

Baker motto: Beware the hippie "undecided voter" with the ponytail!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
I am capped. I will pay more if the cap is removed or raised. That does not mean that my tax increased. It means that it isn't limited to a certain percentage of my income anymore, but applies to all of it (or to more of it, if they raise instead of remove it).

I agree, it's semantics. But let's look at it this way -- my state has a 5% sales tax on goods, but has a list of things that are exempt from the sales tax. Let's say that one of those things is pool chlorine. Let's say that I have a pool. Let's say that my state is having a budget shortfall, and they decide to tinker with the tax exemptions, but leave the rate alone. Pool chlorine is now subject to the 5% sales tax, and I now pay $10.50 for my bucket of chlorine tablets instead of $10.00. Has my tax increased?

Yes, it has. No one gives a shit about percentages or what is taxed, they just want to know how much of the money they earn they get to keep. If they have to pay more in taxes, while earning the same amount, their tax has increased.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Bush camp quivers in fear of Third Debate. May "pull a Cheney" and seek deferment until, say, December (or perhaps have a baby).



Baker motto: Beware the hippie "undecided voter" with the ponytail!

Sorry, I was under the impression he had already agreed to 3 debates.