Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Go do your fucking Roth IRA within your qualified plan, which you can do starting next year, despite the fact you are over the income limit for the original Roths, and shut it.

what's this now? 401(k)'s can be done Roth-style--i.e., pay tax now, and nevermore?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the personal accounts of which I'm speaking. Reform certainly has to happen.

So how is this a catastrophe for Bush. Rarely in DC does a politician get everything em wants. If he gets SS reform, even without personal accounts, it is a win for him no matter how the DEMs will spin it.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
The credibility of the UN is based on the credibility of the supporting members. So, Saddam flaunting the resolutions was Saddam flaunting the proponents of the resolutions - us. Which is why Panda's point is inapposite. When someone fails to support "Israel is the source of all that is bad in the world", they're hardly dissing us.

Not all UN resolutions are equal, then, and we're free to ignore those that we don't agree with. Got it. My mistake. Carry on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll agree to that, as long as you don't counter discussion of the elderly by making it about soldiers. I'm not overly fond of the VA cuts myself.

I didn't think I was - you made the point that the elderly were the wealthiest group, I made the point that this really thrilled one elderly person I know on a limited income. The limited income measure I happened to use was a military pension.

Others turned it into being about the soldiers.

If we want to talk military wages, I'd tell you none of the folks I know in the military have done it for the money, though I do think there are many, especially at the enlisted level, who do.

The military never will (and probably never should) challenge civilian salaries for professionals, though the tax-free side of it is an advantage. I have one family member who went through Med School ROTC and then served in Iraq; his salary jumped 10 fold when he left the military, but of course the military also paid for Med School.

What the military should offer is a solid living wage and some damn good benefits, especially medical and retirement. If someone gives their whole life to the military, they ought to have a comfortable retirement and they ought to know they will be cared for.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
So now I'm confused. I just said that the personal accounts idea is bad, and should go away, while basic reform of the funding/outlay scheme of SS should happen. Did you switch sides?

I thought you were saying that the personal account idea may not be dead.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So how is this a catastrophe for Bush. Rarely in DC does a politician get everything em wants. If he gets SS reform, even without personal accounts, it is a win for him no matter how the DEMs will spin it.

If you look at health care today, most of the elements of Hilary's plan have been implemented, through HIPAA and the Omnibus Reconcilation Act of 1997, plus the market heading in that general direction at the time. It's still seen as a disaster politically.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Not all UN resolutions are equal, then, and we're free to ignore those that we don't agree with. Got it. My mistake. Carry on.

As long as we're clear . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If we want to talk military wages, I'd tell you none of the folks I know in the military have done it for the money, though I do think there are many, especially at the enlisted level, who do.

The military never will (and probably never should) challenge civilian salaries for professionals, though the tax-free side of it is an advantage. I have one family member who went through Med School ROTC and then served in Iraq; his salary jumped 10 fold when he left the military, but of course the military also paid for Med School.

What the military should offer is a solid living wage and some damn good benefits, especially medical and retirement. If someone gives their whole life to the military, they ought to have a comfortable retirement and they ought to know they will be cared for.

2

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought you were saying that the personal account idea may not be dead.

I was also saying that, yes. Not that I like it, but . . .

The Washington Post had a confusing poll yesterday (I think). A majority of people disapproved of "Bush's privatization plan", but a majority approved of the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their SS accounts into the stock market. Made me think people don't quite understand what's going on.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was also saying that, yes. Not that I like it, but . . .

The Washington Post had a confusing poll yesterday (I think). A majority of people disapproved of "Bush's privatization plan", but a majority approved of the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their SS accounts into the stock market. Made me think people don't quite understand what's going on.

This is why W started referring to his privatization plan as "personal accounts," and why his goons started complaining of media bias when the media called it privatization instead of personal accounts.

eta: I think you're right about people not understanding what's going on.

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
-- W, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was also saying that, yes. Not that I like it, but . . .

The Washington Post had a confusing poll yesterday (I think). A majority of people disapproved of "Bush's privatization plan", but a majority approved of the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their SS accounts into the stock market. Made me think people don't quite understand what's going on.

In his press conference this morning, the President admitted that privatization would not address the problems with SS; instead, they are now supposed to "soften the blow" of the changes necessary to address those problems. Not surprising that people don't know what's going on.

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
what's this now? 401(k)'s can be done Roth-style--i.e., pay tax now, and nevermore?

Yes. I find the idea repulsive (b/c of the lack of income limitations) and so I'm not clear on the details.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

That's not clear to you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. . . .

The transcript of my last motion hearing is way more disjointed then that. I won it, though. (Extemporaneous speech always looks like crap.)

(ETA - Okay, my extemporaneous speech always looks like crap. Puts me in good company, though.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
The transcript of my last motion hearing is way more disjointed then that. I won it, though. (Extemporaneous speech always looks like crap.)

(ETA - Okay, my extemporaneous speech always looks like crap. Puts me in good company, though.)

Was he answering a question? For some reason, I would think he'd have something prepared on this topic. And, unlike you, he has teleprompters etc.