We'll pay for privatizing Social Security
This message is mostly to young people Bush is marketing his “problem/crisis” and “fix” of our social security. Would you borrow money to fund a 401k? That is what Bush is asking you to do. Even though social security is not a retirement plan. It’s insurance. The cost of funding the diversion of funds to private accounts and continuing to pay benefits will be borrowed. They will launch a 4 decade borrowing spree. The fees to brokerage firms will be up front. Paul Krugman suggests we look to the British experience of the privatization of social security. ......“The selling of privatization also bore a striking resemblance to President Bush's crisis-mongering.” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0114-34.htm
They are 20 years out and it’s not a pretty site.
We can avoid needless tragedy if we choose to learn from their experience. Relatively painless adjustments can be made to social security as needed. This was done in the 80’s and 90’s.
I believe this is a giant shell game. At the end of the day, Wall Street will have our money. We will have no social security, only the debt for the heist. We’ll be singin’ “Where did the money go?” Inform yourself. Don’t fall for this.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Barbara... you rock!!!!!!!!!
Boxer Delivers Major Speech On Social Security
Speech Addresses Real Motivation Behind Privatization
February 11, 2005
San Francisco, CA - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) delivered a major speech on Social Security today at the San Francisco Senior Center. Boxer’s speech addressed efforts to privatize social security and the real motivation behind privatization.
Speech Addresses Real Motivation Behind Privatization
February 11, 2005
San Francisco, CA - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) delivered a major speech on Social Security today at the San Francisco Senior Center. Boxer’s speech addressed efforts to privatize social security and the real motivation behind privatization.
Friday, February 11, 2005
new IOU's to fix "worthless IOU's"??????
huh????? the bonds with reagan's picture on them are no good but the one with smirks are???what the hell.....?????? incompetence is the nicest thing i can say about these thugs. wake up America, they're stealin' !!!!
The government itself must be on the verge of collapse.
Bush Talks Trash About U.S. Bonds
by Joe Conason
........For at least five years, George W. Bush has been muttering about his determination to "reform" Social Security, but he may never get around to articulating a specific plan until the question is moot. The sketchy notions floated by the White House sound so unappealing that even legislators of the President’s own party are backing away from his campaign against the nation’s great social-insurance system.
In this instance, the bogus threat conjured by Mr. Bush and his conservative supporters is the U.S. government’s abandonment of its commitment to generations of workers who paid taxes into the Social Security system. They tell us that the system is going bankrupt, that the system is "flat broke"—by which they mean that the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund are worthless. The catch phrase they use is "worthless I.O.U.’s."
..............This scare-the-rubes rhetoric is what makes the President’s Social Security scheme so darkly comical. He is talking down the same bonds that would have to be marketed to pay for his plan’s transition costs. So while he warns us that those old bonds held by the trust fund are worthless, he is simultaneously proposing to sell trillions of dollars more in new bonds to finance his privatization plan.
........The Democrats standing united to protect Social Security should demand forthright answers, and they should enunciate their own response loudly: There is no reason, and no chance, that we will default on our obligations.
The government itself must be on the verge of collapse.
Bush Talks Trash About U.S. Bonds
by Joe Conason
........For at least five years, George W. Bush has been muttering about his determination to "reform" Social Security, but he may never get around to articulating a specific plan until the question is moot. The sketchy notions floated by the White House sound so unappealing that even legislators of the President’s own party are backing away from his campaign against the nation’s great social-insurance system.
In this instance, the bogus threat conjured by Mr. Bush and his conservative supporters is the U.S. government’s abandonment of its commitment to generations of workers who paid taxes into the Social Security system. They tell us that the system is going bankrupt, that the system is "flat broke"—by which they mean that the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund are worthless. The catch phrase they use is "worthless I.O.U.’s."
..............This scare-the-rubes rhetoric is what makes the President’s Social Security scheme so darkly comical. He is talking down the same bonds that would have to be marketed to pay for his plan’s transition costs. So while he warns us that those old bonds held by the trust fund are worthless, he is simultaneously proposing to sell trillions of dollars more in new bonds to finance his privatization plan.
........The Democrats standing united to protect Social Security should demand forthright answers, and they should enunciate their own response loudly: There is no reason, and no chance, that we will default on our obligations.
CON-passionate CON-servatism or reverse robin hood????
Paul Krugman is on the case!!!! and his conclusions are right on!!! take the fight to them!!!!
Bush's Class-War Budget
By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 11, 2005
...........Until now, the administration has also been able to pretend that the budget deficit isn't an important issue so the role of tax cuts in causing that deficit can be ignored. But Mr. Bush has at last conceded that the deficit is indeed a major problem.
Why shouldn't the affluent, who have done so well from Mr. Bush's policies, pay part of the price of dealing with that problem?
Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.
On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)
Why, then, shouldn't a rollback of high-end tax cuts be on the table?
Democrats have surprised the Bush administration, and themselves, by effectively pushing back against Mr. Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security. It's time for them to broaden their opposition, and push back against Mr. Bush's tax policy.
eventually archived at
Bush's Class-War Budget
By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 11, 2005
...........Until now, the administration has also been able to pretend that the budget deficit isn't an important issue so the role of tax cuts in causing that deficit can be ignored. But Mr. Bush has at last conceded that the deficit is indeed a major problem.
Why shouldn't the affluent, who have done so well from Mr. Bush's policies, pay part of the price of dealing with that problem?
Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.
On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)
Why, then, shouldn't a rollback of high-end tax cuts be on the table?
Democrats have surprised the Bush administration, and themselves, by effectively pushing back against Mr. Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security. It's time for them to broaden their opposition, and push back against Mr. Bush's tax policy.
eventually archived at
Thursday, February 10, 2005
kudos to the bloggers!!!!! you're awesome...
this is such a great story.....everybody's talking...well they should be......come on mainstream media, do your stinking job...grow a set if you have to....the administration has a phoney journalist with press access to the president for almost 2 years......a new(fake) news organization pops up and 5 days later the fake journalist gets credentialed and wheeeeeeeeee.......he asking softballs questions side by side with the real press in the ovam!!!!!! and simple scotty just loves to pick him......propaganda anyone????? and the scrubbing of jeff was good too.....so glad salon had a photo......i didn't really want to see him in his undies anyway.
this is a great article at salon and the short ad i watched to read it for free wasn't bad either(if ya like really cute little dogs!)
"..........Talon News reporter "Jeff Gannon" lobs White House spokesman Scott McClellan a question at a Feb. 1, 2005, press briefing.
Fake news, fake reporter
Why was a partisan hack, using an alias and with no journalism background, given repeated access to daily White House press briefings?salon.com gannon affair
and then there is kos dailykos.com
and http://mediamatters.org/
Some "Jeff Gannon" highlights ... no longer available on the Talon News website
oh and then there is my afternoon addiction!!!!! the randi rhodes show
and how bout' this for drama....(could be "queen" or in my business it's "code")
http://www.jeffgannon.com/
but wait there is breaking news.......heee's back.....
this is a great article at salon and the short ad i watched to read it for free wasn't bad either(if ya like really cute little dogs!)
"..........Talon News reporter "Jeff Gannon" lobs White House spokesman Scott McClellan a question at a Feb. 1, 2005, press briefing.
Fake news, fake reporter
Why was a partisan hack, using an alias and with no journalism background, given repeated access to daily White House press briefings?salon.com gannon affair
and then there is kos dailykos.com
and http://mediamatters.org/
Some "Jeff Gannon" highlights ... no longer available on the Talon News website
oh and then there is my afternoon addiction!!!!! the randi rhodes show
and how bout' this for drama....(could be "queen" or in my business it's "code")
http://www.jeffgannon.com/
but wait there is breaking news.......heee's back.....
Thursday, February 03, 2005
what's really happening in Iraq
just a reminder that there is a voice from Iraq in case anyone wants to know what is really going on and what "they" really think......
I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems… How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia… Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets? Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper…terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there. The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America... Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now.
(jan15 2005 post)
I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems… How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia… Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets? Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper…terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there. The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America... Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now.
(jan15 2005 post)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
