The George Bush Lock Box Thread
 

I think by now we're mostly growing tired of every thread devolving into a Bush bash. I'm one of the biggest offenders so I thought I needed to come up with a solution. Here it is, every time you want to crack on Bush but in your heart you know its off topic post it here where we can enjoy it unencumbered by a long thread on another topic.

I'll go first. We damn near missed the school bus today and its the fault of George Bush.

Lady Sidhe got a flat tire while driving my car friday and we went to get in her van this morning and the battery was dead.

If he could actually pronounce nuclear, the world would be a better place.

Fuck him to hell.

There ya go. :D

I can't decide if it's ironic or pathetic that you can't stay on topic in a thread designed to be off topic.

I guess I should have posted my "George Bush is a bedwetter" comment here. No excuse, really.

Aren't you going off topic by criticizing someone else for going off topic? And BTW, that's George Bush's fault too.

This looks like a job for ThreadHijackMan...

Hey, don't we have a Thread Hijacking Monitor now? Or is it the Thread Hijacking Police?

No...its the Compassion Police, I think, although the Chief may have resigned.

I stand corrected, no thanks to his "No Child Left Behind" program. :)

I posted the GWB comment to the peeing in the shower thread on purpose. The Dubya made me do it.

George Bush broke my seatpost.

It not just George... its the evil administration, they have given me cramps. Its become a pattern. damn them.

:lol2:

George bush makes me stink. especially when i fart.

It's George Bush's fault that whistleblowers on torture get forcibly locked up as delusional. (link fixed)

Bad link HM.

I blame Dubya for jag's mis-underUtilization of the word remuneration.

;)

I blame Bush's horrid syllabication for people's unwillingness to hear words of that magnitude.

Because of George Bush I am able to have long nights of untroubled sleep.

Hmmm.

That's not what you were looking for, was it.

Bush's fault! :D

I bought a bunch of clothes with a tractor theme for my nephew for xmas and I just need a toy tractor to finish him up. Went to Toysrus (because Fao Schwarz is gone, thanks Walmart) to find one and they didn't have any. Tons of guns and tanks of every make and model, but not one tractor. Of course I blame that bastard Bush...

Perhaps once the war on terror is over you can hammer those guns into plowshares. :rolleyes:

"Oh, and I'm *not* going to mention the election, OK? God ordained he should win, it's as simple as that - he freely admitted it. (Bush, that is. Not God.) (And, apparently, at time of writing, Bush still acknowledges there's a distinction between the two.)"
- Mil Millington

The Christmas gift-giving chores are George Bush's fault. So is Needless-Markup valet parking at the Mall. So are the crowds at the mall, and Internet companies who lie about ship times.

Bah Humbug

--- E.T. Scrooge

I knew I wouldn't have to wait long for Amy Goodman to blame GW for the Tsunami. I was interested in how she would acheive it. It seems the 35 mill or whatever the US has pledged is approximately what GWs owners are spending on the inaugural...

You know, I honestly don't get the inaugural hoopla for second term presidents. Granted, I hate Bush and will bash him over nothing, but I didn't get it for Clinton either.

I work near the White House. When the weather is nice, I go for a stroll around the Elipse and White House. They have been working on the viewing stand where Bush will sit for two months now. They are using HUGE steel girders to support the roof. These girders are sized to hold up an entire 12 story office building, but they are only being used to hold up a roof. Even if they make the roof out of inch thick steel (which they very well could be doing, I haven't been by in a few weeks) these beams are way oversized.

They could have built an actual house or two with the effort that is going into a viewing stand that will hold the president for 45 minutes to watch a parade. It just seems like a tremendous waste.

I think the country as a whole wouldn't care if the inauguration was held inside, behind closed doors, and broadcast on TV. You could still have the parade outside without the Prez. It's not like he actually pays attention to it anyway.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...9/t029100a.jpg

Is it possible folks who go for this 2nd inaugural stuff are all thinking about the famous actor on the balcony in this shot?

I was going to say something similar, but you said it more eloquently ...

The sturdiness of the construction serves a security purpose.

I don't understand your point. If it is a reference to a need for tight security, then I still don't know what that has to do with having a big party for a 2nd term Prez.

My point is simply that a lot of money and effort is being spent to commemorate nothing. Bush was president, and will continue to be president. There is no change. There is nothing new or different. There is no need to mark this particular date as being momentous, because it will be just like the day before. It is not momentous.

I fully understand and agree with the idea of throwing a party when a new president comes in. But second term presidents are not new. I don't think it calls for a party, and this one is more extravagant than the last one.

Private funds pay for all the balls, but the Federal Government shuts down for the day. All the employees get a paid day off. The streets are closed for the parade, and security costs go through the roof as every cop in DC gets put on overtime, and all Secret Service agents do too. Expensive stands are built. Planning sessions are made. Etc. Etc. The Federal Government spends a lot of money to mark the passage from Bush to Bush.

I felt the same way for Clinton, but was less strongly opposed back then, because I got the day off, and I voted for the guy.

This hoopla should only be for 1st term presidents.

So lets put all this into perspective. That viewing stand with all its security costs about the same amount sent to how many millions of Tsunami victims? Numbers are easy to fathom. Which is more important?

The perspective is correct: if we are going to say the US Gov is responsible for saving and protecting the entire fucking earth, then it is not that long a stretch to want to throw a big party when we elect one into office.

YYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN...

The first thing the people need are food/water/medicine, help burying the deceased and credit. Having a C-130 full of $100 bills there the next day doesn't accomplish a damn thing. The rest of the planet couldn't carry our jock strap when it comes to international aid and that includes aid granted under Bush so take a break from re-counting Ohio ballots and chill.

Anyone see The Daily Show last night? Bush had some interesting quotes on privatizing Social Security:

Ya know, like poor people do.

Instead, we'll let 'em move some of their social security, currrently in treasury bonds, into the stock market, and tell them not to retire in a down year.
http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/eek.gif I've got no witty response for that one.

Whites live longer than blacks and women live longer than men. The average life expectancy of a black male (about 66 I think?) ensures they will spend a lifetime paying into the system they can't afford, and then die before they collect anything. It's one of the regressive aspects of the system.

Bah--I bet that statistic includes all the 16- to 25-year-old black males who die violently. What's the average life expectancy of a black male who's already made it to, say, 50?

They don't produce that number as far as I can tell. They do produce the number for people who've made 65. White females age 65 can expect to live 19.5 more years. Black males can expect to live 14.6 more years. (White males, 16.6 more years; black females, 18.0 more years.)

Also, I would not discount the effects on a 15% tax on employment wages on the chances that a young black male will be violently killed.

The social security fund is heavily invested in T-Bills and returns a paltry 2-3% annually. The stock market returns, on average, 11-12% per year (which includes down years, btw).

So, here is a chart of the two alternatives: A person who has $10,000 in his or her SS acct at age 30. Look what happens to that 10k (with NO additional money contributed) by the time the person is 65. Even if the stock market took a plunge in any of the last ten years the stock market option still kicks the living crap out of the paltry T-Bill return that SS gets.

I will say, however, that the stock option is only good for people with at least 20 years ahead of them. That is more than long enough to substantially increase the odds of actually achieving a return close to the historical average.

That's average. If everyone in the US made the average salary, we would need no safety net. Whats the comparison of the minimum return for an individual in T-bills and stocks? That's what Social Security is for - a guaranteed minimum to live on.
Someone who dies young doesn't contribute much to Social Security in the first place. Once one reaches retirement age, I'd guess that most of the death-age discrepancy is more aligned to prosperity than race.

That argument is completely devoid of logic. No one earns exactly the "average" salary of all wage earners. But everyone who invests in the stock market earns the average return over the long run and that average return is remarkably stable. Why should I be penalized because you are terrified of the stock market. I can turn 10k into 450k while your 10k turns into 21k. But, in your world, I am prohibited because "its not fair to you." How so?? How does what I do with my money affect what you do with yours?

Also, please provide a scenario where a long term investment in T-Bills has outperformed the same investment in the stock market over a 35-year span.

And as for your point that SS provides a minimum amount to live on, let's see you do it. SS income is inadaquate - that's the reason alternatives are being proposed. And the whole basis of the SS system is that there be enough people paying into the system to cover those drawing from the system. That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin. Prepare for even more cuts in benefits or, allow me to take more risk than you are willing to take to and earn (historically speaking) five times more than you and I'll help cover your deficit. If you do nothing, the system will not survive. What's your alternative solution?

That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin.

Tiny nitpick--the baby boomer retirees won't specifically outnumber workers. The coming crisis is because the baby-boomers will reduce the worker-to-retiree ratio to 3-to-1 (whereas when the system was started the ratio was 16-to-1.) Still a crisis in financial terms, though, and I agree with everything else you've said. :)

actually it is all charted to the greatest detail by insurance industry. that is how they determine life insurance rates. i believe they are called the actuarial tables.

No they do not, as you admit later on: What risk are you speaking of, if everyone earns the average? The fact is, people can and do lose their life savings on the market. Every fund is not a winner. That's not how it works, unless that's a personal promise from you to me, in which case it hardly solves the greater problem. If we do nothing, the benefits eventually fall to 80% of the current levels, (adjusted for inflation). The simplest fix is to adjust the maximum taxable earnings based on the needs of the system.

can you expand on that HM?
***************


personally, i like an idea that would never get passed because it would be political suicide. but i would say that for anyone under 18 on 1 January 20xx there will be no social security check to look forward to. they have their entire lives to plan for their retirement and invest. for those 18-30, cut their benefit to 60%, for those 31-40 80%, for those 41-50 95%, for those of 51 on 1january 20xx they continue to receive their expected check until death.

in the beginning everyone would have to continue to pay SS tax, but that would be scaled down until there was no SS tax.

if you are 18 and know that there won't be any handout at age 62, you are a little more likely to put some money away for the future. and if you don't, tough s**t, i hope your family saved enough for the both of you.

how we got to a point where we expect our government to give us money for retirement is beyond me.

There is a maximum level of contribution per year. If there aren't enough funds, that level can be raised.

are you saying that if there isn't enough money to pay for SS then we should increase the tax for SS?

Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant.

if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better.

There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring.

ok, so you are saying that if John Q makes above $X00,000 annual, he will start receiving a smaller paycheck. and if the SS system is still around he will get more money back at retirement. money that he could have invested to much more effectively himself.

On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.

That is what Social Security is all about. Not everyone ends up better off individually than they theoretically could have, but everyone gets a no-risk guaranteed benefit, and society benefits.

if i'm the guy that sees my taxes go up so that someone who isn't responsible enough to handle his own retirement plan can have more money, i'm not real happy about it. i say that as a person who is watching my parents work through their retirement because his pension and SS don't go as far as he thought it would.

it wouldn't be right to tax high wage earners more to subsidize my father's retirement. if anyone is going to subsidize him, it should be his own family - me.

You may not like the fundamental theory of social security, but that's what it is. Not everyone has someone to fall back on in times of trouble.

we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.

So what? If you begrudge the difference between the SS benefit and the amount you might have otherwise made, would you feel better if wealthy people got nothing back?

That would be another way to deal with the (eventual) SS deficit, but I don't think you'd be too happy with that one either.

It's called entitlement, a promise from Uncle sam to pay me in return for the years I've paid him. It didn't matter if I liked the plan or not, I wasn't allowed to opt out, so as far as I'm concerned, neither is he. :eyebrow:

This is an ironic highjacking.

If you're under 50, and you believe that, I have this nice bridge to sell you...

The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.

if the government is willing to do what? tax me more to take care of people who didn't plan for their own futures? i'm sure they are willing to do that.


Bruce - i'm not talking about cutting benefits to people already in the system and dependent on the income, i'm talking about telling those that are just starting out to take care of themselves because the handouts are going to stop. it would be unfair to stop the benefits of those who have lived their whole lives counting on it, but it would be imprudent to raise future generations to be equally dependent on it.