PDA

View Full Version : Re: Bush's hometown endorses Kerry


Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 06:25 PM
"Florida Patriot" > wrote in message
m...
>
> http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
>
> Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he
> had promised that, as President, he would:
>
> . Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset
> fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security
> benefits.

Slash Social Security benefits? If only!

> . Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and
> military pay.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent? If only!

> . Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil
> prices by 50 percent.

Stop dictating wage schedules to private businesses? If only!

And of course, Bush doesn't set oil prices, so he can't have raised them.
They've risen, and to some extent it was his fault, but there have also been
factors beyond his control.

> . Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the
> history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that
> will take generations to repay.

The worst deficit in the history of the US was in 1943, when it was 30% of
the GDP. In 2003 it was 3.5%. The debt increase has been substantial, but
with responsible budgeting (read: major spending cuts), it can be paid off
in as many years as it took to rack it up.

> Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his
> initiatives to disable the Social Security system,

If only!

> the deteriorating state of the American economy

Fair enough, but Kerry's just promised more of everything Bush has done
wrong economically.

> President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security
> system as we know it by privatizing it

If only!

> which when considering all the
> tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a
> dramatic tailspin.

Utter rot. Shufting resources from consumption (payouts to Social Security
recipients or other government spending) to investment (private Social
Security accounts) can only help.

> The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the
> government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system
> must work by law....

I'll give credit where it's due--this is the first time I've ever seen this
fact identified by the media.

> ...but how do you later repay Social Security while you
> are running a huge deficit? It's impossible, without raising taxes
> sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now.

Nonsense. The federal budget could be cut by 80%, and it would still be
above pre-WWI levels as a percentage of GDP. Then the debt could be paid
down very quickly, even after cutting taxes again. But maybe that's what
they meant by "becoming fiscally responsible now."

> Social
> Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same
> time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down
> the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future
> gain.

Agreed there. Returning money to private hands is always a better use than
government spending.

> Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security
> to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market.

Over the short term, yes. But over the long term, productive investment is
better than simple wealth transfer. And if people don't want to risk the
stock market, they have safer options, like money market funds and corporate
bonds.

> It would
> take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system,

That's how the real world works. If you want someone to perform a service
for you, you pay them money. But you don't mind, because the service is
worth more to you than the fee.

> and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of
> the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the
> Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation,
> not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that
> would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

So we'll let the government manage our money. They've always been
trustworthy stewards.

> Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns.

Nonsense. Social Security has no assets, and the government can and will do
whatever it wants with payroll tax revenues.

> He
> says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be
> solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds.

The "trust fund" is a lie, as noted above. But Social Security is manageable
indefinitely at current (or any) funding levels. All we need do is reduce
benefits and/or raise the retirement age to levels appropriate to the
available funds.

> This would give
> ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the
> Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program
> as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

How's Kerry going to bolster the economy and reduce the deficit with huge
new entitlement programs?

> Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security.

Just one reason of many to regret Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

> Bush's answer is
> radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have
> never experienced.

Utter rot. IIRC, his plan would redirect only 1/6 of Social Security
revenues. That's neither radical nor capable of causing unprecedented chaos.

> Do we really want to risk the future of Social
> Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

Not really. I'd prefer a certain end to it.

Besides, this is nothing new. Bush talked about privatizing Social Security
in 2000.

> The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues,
> including the denial of stem cell research

More accurately, the denial of federal funds for stem cell research
involving lines not designated for such purposes. There has been no actual
ban. Just another reason to keep government out of the science business.

> shortchanging veterans' entitlements

I'm fairly certain that this is false, but I welcome actual evidence to the
contrary.

> cutting school programs and grants

See above. Again, if only!

There are perfectly good reasons to dislike Bush. There's no need to make
things up.

> When examined based on all the facts, Kerry's voting record is
> enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the
> Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to
> Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative,
> providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our
> wronged economy.

I can't help but notice the lack of examples. I do believe that Kerry would
be less harmful than Bush if his ambitions were blocked by an uncooperative
Republican Congress, as with Clinton. But I believe that he could be even
more dangerous with a Democratic Congress.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Jim
October 3rd 04, 11:01 PM
I was having dinner the other day at a Mexican restaurant when I saw this on
tv. One of the best meals I ever had.
Guacomole never tasted better. Jenny and I were just in awe. Of course its
just a small town,weekly paper. But still.

Jim

John M. Williams
October 4th 04, 12:53 AM
"Jim" > wrote:

>I was having dinner the other day at a Mexican restaurant when I saw this on
>tv. One of the best meals I ever had.
>Guacomole never tasted better.

"ˇMás cervezas!" shouted Jim, "Más, más, más!"

Jim
October 4th 04, 01:18 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >I was having dinner the other day at a Mexican restaurant when I saw this
on
> >tv. One of the best meals I ever had.
> >Guacomole never tasted better.
>
> "ˇMás cervezas!" shouted Jim, "Más, más, más!"

I have no idea what that means. I could google it but I assume its an
alcohol thing. We went home totally sober that night.

Jim

MJL
October 4th 04, 03:21 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:18:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>> >I was having dinner the other day at a Mexican restaurant when I saw this
>on
>> >tv. One of the best meals I ever had.
>> >Guacomole never tasted better.
>>
>> "ˇMás cervezas!" shouted Jim, "Más, más, más!"
>
>I have no idea what that means. I could google it but I assume its an
>alcohol thing. We went home totally sober that night.
>
>Jim
>

Dammit Jim, I'm a researcher, NOT a bartender.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Jim
October 4th 04, 03:27 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:18:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I was having dinner the other day at a Mexican restaurant when I saw
this
> >on
> >> >tv. One of the best meals I ever had.
> >> >Guacomole never tasted better.
> >>
> >> "ˇMás cervezas!" shouted Jim, "Más, más, más!"
> >
> >I have no idea what that means. I could google it but I assume its an
> >alcohol thing. We went home totally sober that night.
> >
> >Jim
> >
>
> Dammit Jim, I'm a researcher, NOT a bartender.
>
>
> --
> http://www.texansfortruth.org/

It was an excellent restaurant and I heard the drinks were good..but we were
just too tired. One of those nights you just want to eat,have lazy sex and
sleep.

Jim

Jim
October 4th 04, 03:31 AM
Sorry Mike..was that a Star Trek reference? I'm slow but laughing.

Jim