Wait a second, you mean to tell me that people have control over their futures? Wait, this can't be! This is terrible! The government should not only run our investments for us, but they should also pick our wife, buy our car, and select our house! If the government is providing a security net, it should function as such. If they are letting people invest in private savings - go all the way. Get rid of SS entirely. Don't act like something's a security net and then make it exactly the opposite though. I would scrap SS entirely and simply create a supplemental welfare for the elderly. It would be far, far cheaper and just as effective in protecting the people SS is meant to protect.
Against my better judgement, here's Drudge... ___________ EDWARDS BACKED STOCK MARKET GAMBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY [RESULTS OF A DRUDGE REPORT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MAN OF MYSTERY, DEM HOPEFUL JOHN EDWARDS, WILL BE APPEARING IN THE COMING DAYS IN THIS SPACE...] **Exclusive** Iowa darling and Dem presidential hopeful John Edwards easily flips and flops on major issues, a DRUDGE REPORT investigation can reveal. First up: The senator from North Carolina "strongly opposes investing Social Security in the stock market," according to his campaign website. In a page titled "seniors," Edwards takes a stand on the controversial issue, declaring how he "strongly opposes recent efforts to privatize Social Security, which would jeopardize benefits by risking our Social Security funds in the stock market." But before he decided he was going to seek the Democratic presidential nomination, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal, Edwards supported investing Social Security funds in the stock market! In a speech on October 6, 1998 in Raleigh, Senator Edwards told a group of senior citizens that Social Security surpluses - money not needed immediately to pay benefits - should be invested and kept separate. A portion of the money, up to 10 percent, could be invested in the stock market and the remainder put in secure investments such as treasury bills, Edwards explained. On September 27, 1998, Edwards told a gathering at Elon College how a small part of the Social Security fund should be invested in stocks and bonds "to see the kind of returns it would produce." Investment brokers and not Washington bureaucrats should decide how the money should be invested, Edwards said. Edwards advocated setting up a new commission to invest "5 to 10 percent of Social Security reserves in private markets. " The Wilmington Star-News reported on the Edwards speech at Elon under the headline: "Many in poll fear uncertain future on social security." Edwards's presidential campaign theme is "There Are Two Americas." But now, the question must be asked, are there two John Edwards? _____________ So, Edwards backed a "Stock Market Gamble?" Here's a hint... if you're going to attack someone, don't do it in a way that also undercuts your cause. Truly Bush League and shows how intellectually bankrupt the Bush operation is... they have to attack guy by pretending he supports what they support. Notice also how he says "just five years ago" as if that didn't matter? Five years ago, we didn't know the havoc your profession and unscrupulous businessmen would create regarding the confidence and pocketbooks of ordinary Americans who had a little extra cash to invest or who were depending on institutional investments to help with retirement. Then, there was also an argument about what to do with the SS Surplus once the Federal Govt. no longer needed to support a yearly debt. "Just five years ago" indeed. Furthermore, Edwards was talking about investing a small percentage of the whole and thus spreading the risk. This is a far cry from creating individual accounts and giving financial types free reign to fleece people. There's the old saying, "if it's not social, it's not security." Edwards plan at the time was to keep the risk low for individuals and for SS as well. Bush's plan is the complete opposite. Indded the issues is risk, and that is why the criticism is unfounded. Just look with an objective eye at the way Drudge writes the story and you can see it's a hatchet job but even Drudge can't bring himself to leave out the info (the quotes from Edwards) that puts the lie to his story. Really, If this and the Clark thing are the best that's out there, I've got to say what Kerry said... "Bring it on."
Well, they are already telling us who we can and cannot marry. I've liked Edwards from the beginning, if for no other reason than his electability. A fairly moderate Southern Democrat is the party's best chance at reclaiming the White House, IMO. I think what many people like giddyup and MadMax are starting to believe is that a government with two different parties running the Executive and Legislative branches is clearly an ideal one. The checks and balances that were put in place by our founding fathers crumble a bit when one party controls both branches, be it Republicans or Democrats. I could definitely live with Bush for four more years if the Democrats could take over the House and Senate. Likewise, if Edwards, Kerry, or Clark were somehow elected President, I think I'd prefer a Republican Congress in place, provided that the partisanship that marred much of Clinton's Presidency disappeared.
Giddy, you might be interested in the following figures/article from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, as reprinted in the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB107447325067904858,00.html -- GO FIGURE New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president. Annual Increase in billions Kerry: 265.11 Dean: 222.90 Clark: 220.66 Edwards: 199.48 Lieberman: 169.55 Source: NTUF calculations from BillTally and cost-accounting sources. The remaining Democrat presidential challengers have decried the size of the mounting Bush budget deficits. However, a closer look at their own platforms reveals an inconvenient fact: the budget shortfalls they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using our BillTally budget software and relying on third-party sources (such as the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to every proposal they've offered. We found that each candidate calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit -- on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection (effectively a 21.5% increase in federal spending). Each of the Democrats has at one time called for full or partial repeal of the Bush tax cut, as if this were a panacea for federal budgetary woes and a license to introduce new proposals. Even by the most generous estimates, the projected federal revenue reduction in 2004 as a result of the 2003 tax cuts is $135 billion -- yet, the thriftiest of the Democratic platforms calls for $170 billion in new spending. Howard Dean has labeled himself a "fiscal conservative," but his policies -- including complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts -- would increase the federal deficit by $88 billion in just the first year. Where would the candidates cut? Someone hid the knives. Out of well over 200 proposals with a budgetary impact offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending. Nor do these alarming figures account for the fact that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7% over the past three years. Even the most parsimonious of the candidates eclipses that total by over 15%.
One that is legitimate... and not dependent on slective quotes taken out of context or a total misrepresentation of the facts.
Giddy, you might be interested in the following figures/article from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, as reprinted in the WSJ: Keep in mind a couple of things: (1) A Democratic President with a Republican Congress (or vice-versa) can't pass new spending programs the way a Congress/President of the same party can. That's one reason government spending slowed substantially from '94-'00. (2) This doesn't account for any spending reductions. Of course candidates (Republican or Democrat) aren't going to discuss specific programs to be cut during an election. These are specifically new projects being talked about it. It's difficult to get a read on a budget without seeing the thing in its entirety. We know what we've got with Bush - out of control deficits. We don't know as of yet what we'd get with these Democratic canddiates. We'll learn more as the general election rolls around and this becomes more of a hot topic.
GW Bush in the State of the Union proposed a bunch of new spending initiatives while also making the tax cuts permanent. Have you factored these into your calculations to see how the deficit if every GW Bush initiative was factored in?
I've heard this from a few other Repubs also and I think what you are suffering is that this Admin. and the Neo-Con movement in general no longer follows tradtional Repub issues. At one time the Repubs were known for fiscal responsibility, small government, free trade, individual liberties and cautious foreign policy. What we've gotten with the GW Bush Admin. is Repubs who practice Keynsian economics, greatly expand the Fed. gov., impose steel and textile tarriffs, curtail individual liberties and fight wars based on speculation.
I'm interested to see how long he can keep it up. It's been easy since he's been relatively flying under the radar. If he becomes a front-runner, it'll be interesting to see if he starts to respond to the inevitable attack ads. People, including me, express this sentiment every election cycle. Everyone I talk to about politics, people I hear on the radio, people I see on the television, they all say they're sick of the mudslinging in political races. However, it seems like most of the time, the guy who slings the most mud wins.
You think this came from Bush? It most likely came from Clark campaign. Maybe from Kerry or Dean. Bush is not criticizing the democrat candidates at this point.
Uh, I seriously doubt that. Rove doesn't take a break from politiking and Drudge isn't exactly there to help other Democrats.
Bush is not criticizing the democrat candidates at this point. RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie attacks a different Democrat each day, more or less. And the last Drudge report coincided with the same day Gillespie made the same attack on Clark.
Good synopsis from Calpundit... _________________ THE WHITE HOUSE'S TRUTH DEFICIT....One of the most remarkable statements in yesterday's State of the Union address was this one: In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent....By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years. Now, Max will tell you that the budget the president submits is little more than a dog and pony show anyway, but let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that Congress passes his 4% budget intact. What happens? The deficit this year is projected to be about $480 billion. That means Bush is claiming that his budget austerity will reduce the deficit to $240 billion by 2009. Now take a look at the chart on the right, which shows deficit estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline estimate for 2009 (heavy blue line at the top) is a deficit of $170 billion. However, in the SOTU Bush also asked for his existing tax cuts to be made permanent. That's represented by the light blue area in the chart, and changes the estimated 2009 deficit to about $280 billion. The Medicare bill has already been passed. This is the dark blue area on the chart, and when you account for that the CBO deficit estimate deteriorates to about $330 billion. The gray area on the chart represents reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax. It's a no-brainer that this is going to happen, and that takes the 2009 deficit projection to $390 billion. This is bad enough already, but now comes the fun part. The CBO figures assume that discretionary spending rises only by the inflation rate, which they estimate at 2.7% per year. But Bush wants to increase discretionary spending by 4%, a growth rate that's 50% higher than the CBO's estimate. The blue-gray area in the chart overstates this a bit, but even so Bush's 4% pledge still increases the 2009 deficit considerably over the baseline estimate. Once you factor in higher interest costs, we're up to about $500 billion. So: Bush's own publicly stated policies along with AMT reform that everyone knows is inevitable will increase the deficit to $500 billion by 2009, yet he claims these policies will reduce the deficit to $240 billion. Every single budget analyst in the White House knows this perfectly well. President Bush knows this perfectly well. Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie? _______________ What's left out of this is a whole host of things, like the deductibility of catastrophic health insurance premiums, lifetime savings accounts, health savings accounts, diverting social security premiums to private accounts, the real costs of moon/mars, Iraq costs, etc., and it assumes no more tax cuts. It also includes the SS surplus, which is about 250 billion, so if you remove that accounting gimmick, you're looking at something closer to $750 billion plus all those other things instead of the $240 billion Bush claims. Now, all this is based on what Bush says he's going to do, which we all know by now is no certain bet, but c'mon. $750,000,000,000+? That's real money. The sad thing is, I worry about the Dems... They showed that if you act responsibly and get the deficits down and into surpluses, you get little political credit and it just allows the next Republican administration to whack away and make everyone feel good for awhile like Bush did. There is no real incentive (except doing the right thing for the country) for Dems to be the hardasses that fix this thing.
Another point that this thread touches on (and that I've discussed with some of the Repubs I know)... If you are a Republican who believes in fiscal probity and responsibility, if you think that all Americans should get a fair shot at bettering themselves, if you believe that values like honesty and integrity are important in political life, if you believe the military should be used judiciously, etc. then you cannot be completely happy with the Republican Party as it is today. The best solution is to vote Bush out of office because as long as he is there, Republicans cannot act like the Republicans they want to be. Bush and company have hijacked th party and created an atmosphere where Repubs have to tow the WH line. If Bush is removed, a lot of Congressional Repubs will rediscover their true Republican selves and among other things, the phrase "deficit hawk" will be reborn. I suspect most of us can live and even, at times, support a conservative Repuublican, but these guys aren't conservative... they are radical, mean, and vindictive. Think about it.
giddyup, you are saying what I've heard from several longtime, ardent Republicans, including my own sister (boy, that's been fun over the years!), who have told me that they aren't going to vote for Bush, that he's too far to the right, that he's fiscally out of control, and for several other reasons. They tell me that if the Democrats can nominate a moderate who's fiscally responsible, then they will vote for that candidate. If they don't, that they will just sit this one out. In short, I know exactly where you're coming from. That's why I wasn't a fan of Dean. I just couldn't feel that he could win, even if, on the budget and some other issues, he's not as "out there" as he's portrayed. I've wanted a moderate Democrat, strong on defense and liberal on social issues... in the JFK vein, to get the nod. A refreshing and bold post, giddyup, and I just wanted to thank you for expressing on this board what so many Republicans I've talked to have told me in private. As I've mentioned before, my wife has an upper level job working for a well known "commission" of the Legislature here in Texas, so I hear much more about some of this than might be imagined. Thanks for making my day!
My only praise of Clinton was the budget surplus. I know that Bush inherited a bad economy. I don't know if Clinton caused it or if any president has much control over it really.
It's Bush now; it was Reagan before. Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility? I think this is where the upcoming fight will be in the Republican Party. The Democrats have a major problem with Labor vs. Free Trade - unfortunately, it can't really ever be reconciled. The Republicans are going to have issues with Social vs. Fiscal conservatives. Their agendas don't necessarily clash (unlike the labor/free trade problem), but they also are not at all related, and it's possible to be one but not the other. That's going to create some major friction within the party. I think if Bush loses this election, the party is going to undergo a major transformation before 2008. If the Democrats can wrestle away fiscal responsibility, that puts the Republican Party in an interesting position. The key for Democrats is to focus on the center and not the left, and I'm not totally convinced the party wants to do that. If it does though, then we're going to have the same problem in the Democratic Party - the tax & spend Democrats vs. the "new" Democrats.
Pretty much my only dis-satisfaction with Bush is over fiscal matters. I'm not as Libertarian as NoWorries. I have a few more expectations of what the government should and should not do--like reduce spending! I'm not meaning to dump on Bush. I'm just doing something that too many said that I would not/could not do: CRITICIZE BUSH! I constantly parry with Bush's hyper-critics but that doesn't make me an unseeing, unthinking Bush-bot... as many have intimated.
