Anyone care for a re-vote?

[Spexvet]

"WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 45%, the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers.By Tom Hanson, AP

The finding, in a poll of 1,001 adults Monday through Wednesday, is a dip from 52% in a poll taken last week. Bush's previous lowest rating, 46%, was recorded last May."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ush-poll_x.htm

It's a shame that the 7% of voters who voted for Bush and who now disapprove of him couldn't predict the poor job he'd do.

[rep]

It's a shame that the 7% of voters who voted for Bush and who now disapprove of him couldn't predict the poor job he'd do.

The news sounds pretty good to me.

• deficit is in a downward trajectory with the 54 billion dollar surplus - Treasury paid down 42 billion in federal debt instead of borrowing 12 billion.
• economy growing by more than 4% last year.
• Jobless rate down to 5.2%
• stock market back up to 11,000
• interest rates didn't climb as predicted.

Sounds like the tax cuts worked pretty well.

I know to a liberal this is terrible, but for the rest of us, bring it on.

Rep

[Spexvet]

The news sounds pretty good to me.

...Rep

If you approve of the job W is doing, you are in the minority.

[chm2023]

W is back to where he was before 9/11. You can only ride that national emergency/catastrophe thing for so long. I think the combination of the war, gas prices and the long term implications of W's economic policies are starting to define him (Though I for one think he should try the fly-boy stunt again, we could use a chuckle) . It's telling that people are just not buying into his SS plan: I think W's tendency to be less than forthcoming is biting him in the butt. (I was startled to hear W state in his latest broadcast press conference that he would brook no plan that diminished benefits. I heard this with my own ears. Within a day the SS actuarial office published the actual story, that everyone would take dramatic cuts down the road. Oh pants on fire!!!)

[coda]

The news sounds pretty good to me.

• deficit is in a downward trajectory with the 54 billion dollar surplus - Treasury paid down 42 billion in federal debt instead of borrowing 12 billion.

I seem to have missed this news, can you provide a reference?

[Pete Hanlin]

Well, I'm able to finance my house at a nice low % rate, I notice gas prices starting to taper off, I'm happily employed, and it seems to me we're making progress in Iraq (key emphasis on it seems to ME- my opinion).

All that to say, put me in the minority as well! I think the individuals who are now disapproving are probably dissappointed that W hasn't pushed the conservative agenda more aggressively...

[Don Lee]

Well, I'm able to finance my house at a nice low % rate, I notice gas prices starting to taper off, I'm happily employed, and it seems to me we're making progress in Iraq (key emphasis on it seems to ME- my opinion).

All that to say, put me in the minority as well! I think the individuals who are now disapproving are probably dissappointed that W hasn't pushed the conservative agenda more aggressively...

Count me in the minority, too.

Socialistic Insecurity needs to be fixed. The obstructionists won't have anything to do with it because they depend upon the Fear Factor for votes. FDR said exactly what President Bush has said needed to be done with SS. The private sector needs to be involved. I don't get it.

I'm looking for a site that calculates what your SS would have been had your money not been taken away from you. I had one but lost it.

Don

[chm2023]

Count me in the minority, too.

Socialistic Insecurity needs to be fixed. The obstructionists won't have anything to do with it because they depend upon the Fear Factor for votes. FDR said exactly what President Bush has said needed to be done with SS. The private sector needs to be involved. I don't get it.

I'm looking for a site that calculates what your SS would have been had your money not been taken away from you. I had one but lost it.

Don

I believe it should be fixed as well. Private accounts don't fix it. That is not to say private accounts may not be a good idea, but they do not address the shortfall and in fact by borrowing to offset the short term increased delta between revenue and cash outlay that private accounts would cause, the deficit would balloon--not a hot idea.

I do not believe leadership is about simply identifying problems, it is about offering and affecting actual solutions--the difference between Bush and FDR.

[Don Lee]

I believe it should be fixed as well. Private accounts don't fix it.

Private accounts aren't for fixing the problem since only 4% of the portfolio is to be used. It's a step in the right direction and 1,000% better than keeping it at status quo. The object is to get at least twice as much as the 2% ss is getting on our money. Is there some risk? Yes, but investing that 4% isn't to be manditory. Just an opportunity to do the right thing with our money.

I, too, am glad that President Bush is willing to try to do something about it instead of just identifying the problem and doing nothing as the obstructionists are doing.

Don

[chm2023]

Private accounts aren't for fixing the problem since only 4% of the portfolio is to be used. It's a step in the right direction and 1,000% better than keeping it at status quo. The object is to get at least twice as much as the 2% ss is getting on our money. Is there some risk? Yes, but investing that 4% isn't to be manditory. Just an opportunity to do the right thing with our money.

I, too, am glad that President Bush is willing to try to do something about it instead of just identifying the problem and doing nothing as the obstructionists are doing.

Don

Au contraire mon ami. Bush had initially been selling private accounts as part of the fix, at least until the questions started coming--he hates when that happens, but it gives you a context in which to understand the closed nature of the so-called town meetings.

So again, the problem is the shortfall expected to hit in I think 2040 or so. Private accounts DO NOT address this--the amount individuals elect to put in private accounts is offset by the proportionate amount those individuals then see as income, a wash except for the interest we would have to pay to get the cash for current liabilities.

Private accounts per se I have no issue with, but I really don't go for this 3 card monte approach, had enough of that with the WMD. Maybe I'm a stickler, but I feel a solution is only a solution in relationship to a specific problem, in this case, the pending insolvency.

[Don Lee]

Au contraire mon ami. Bush had initially been selling private accounts as part of the fix...

Maybe I'm a stickler, but I feel a solution is only a solution in relationship to a specific problem, in this case, the pending insolvency.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I'm a stickler but I didn't say they weren't part of the fix. I said they aren't the fix but a step in the right direction. Privitization is fundamental because the government will not get the best rate possible. The obstructionists hate this with passion, as seen on TV and C-Span.

3 Card Monte (socialistic insecurity one party vote getter) needs major repair and the obstructionists aren't offering any real help and are only crying wolf.

Don

[Pete Hanlin]

BTW, given that we've migrated to discussing SS here, let me hand out kudos to the AARP for their sensationalistic commerical (the one with the wrecking ball and the destroyed house). Let's face it, being able to dramaticize, exagerate, and distort your opponent's proposals is a major requirement of politics. This commercial does as good a job of "painting a picture" as any I've seen as of late.

PS- I'm well aware that the Republicans do these kinds of ads as well. I'm sincerely commending the AARP for excelling at the art of politics with this ad.

Now, perhaps the GOP could have one of their constituencies come up with a SS Titanic commercial where everyone is playing shuffleboard and sipping tea as the ice water crawls up the deck. When a child points out that the ship is sinking, one of the older passengers might comment "Ah, but it won't sink for a while yet, sweetie- here, have another cookie!"

[chm2023]

Maybe I'm a stickler, but I feel a solution is only a solution in relationship to a specific problem, in this case, the pending insolvency.

Maybe I'm a stickler but I didn't say they weren't part of the fix. I said they aren't the fix but a step in the right direction. Privitization is fundamental because the government will not get the best rate possible. The obstructionists hate this with passion, as seen on TV and C-Span.

3 Card Monte (socialistic insecurity one party vote getter) needs major repair and the obstructionists aren't offering any real help and are only crying wolf.

Don[/QUOTE]

What's that old saw about the requirements for a logical conversation being agreement on the premise--my point is Bush was plain lying by tying the pending shortfall in SS to the "solution" of private accounts. I am not arguing with your position, think it has some merit, but with the deception involved in Bush's approach.

(Three card monte relies on getting the "mark" to take their eye off the card by introducing other cards--oh say Iraq when the problem is Al Q.........or in this case, by introducing the idea of private accounts when they are not relevant to the premise of staving off the shortfall. Yikes.)

[Spexvet]

..(socialistic insecurity one party vote getter)..
Don

It looks like Americans are voting against whatever Bush has in mind. Have you noticed that he hasn't really presented anything concrete?

Social security should be a safety net for older folks who don't have the resources to care for themselves. It shouldn't be for ocogenerians who own three houses and drive a Mercedes. BTW, even with 4% in a privatized account, minus broker fees, and if the market is up, a low wage worker will still need SS (IMHO).

[Don Lee]

It looks like Americans are voting against whatever Bush has in mind. Have you noticed that he hasn't really presented anything concrete?

Social security should be a safety net for older folks who don't have the resources to care for themselves. It shouldn't be for ocogenerians who own three houses and drive a Mercedes. BTW, even with 4% in a privatized account, minus broker fees, and if the market is up, a low wage worker will still need SS (IMHO).

I have no idea what you mean by saying Americans are voting against whatever The President has in mind.

It's the obstructionist who don't have and will not present anything concrete. I believe they're scared to death that the President will work with the non-obstructionists and create a plan that will work, just like tax cuts for everyone, and they won't have their name on it. If the the obstructionists had a plan they'd say something.

SS should be for every single person who contributes to the pitiful system. It shouldn't matter whether they're the 1/2 dozen or so octogenerians who have 3 houses and a Mercedes or a low wage earner.

There are many, many people who paid into ss for decades and only drew 1 year or less of what they put in. The leftover $ should also be passed down from generation to generation and NOT given to the government. That's criminal.

Good grief.
Don

[chm2023]

If Bush, or Congress, Republicans and Democrats, had a clue about leadership, and were serious about addressing the problems we face, they would be talking about Medicare--a financial crisis in waiting that makes SS look like chump change.

[Spexvet]

I have no idea what you mean by saying Americans are voting against whatever The President has in mind.

Seen a Gallup Poll lately? Americans are not falling for Bush's BS.

It's the obstructionist who don't have and will not present anything concrete. I believe they're scared to death that the President will work with the non-obstructionists and create a plan that will work, just like tax cuts for everyone, and they won't have their name on it. If the the obstructionists had a plan they'd say something.

Please stop using "obstructionist" to mean "anybody who disagrees with my way of thinking". The republicans were "obstructionists" in the same way when the Clintons tried to fix the health care system back in the 90s - remember that? Maybe, if they had not been obstructed from making changes, our SS and Medicare wouldn't be in trouble, now. Who knows?

SS should be for every single person who contributes to the pitiful system. It shouldn't matter whether they're the 1/2 dozen or so octogenerians who have 3 houses and a Mercedes or a low wage earner.

Sure - and everybody should get welfare and medicaid whether they need it or not, too. After all, they contribute to it. :hammer:

There are many, many people who paid into ss for decades and only drew 1 year or less of what they put in. The leftover $ should also be passed down from generation to generation and NOT given to the government. That's criminal.

I agree with you. Talk to Dutch Reagan - his administration started the pilaging of the SS "trust fund".

[chip anderson]

There never was any SS "Trust Fund". SS was started as a means for Democrats to buy votes with tax money. This is still it's main purpose in life. No one in thier right mind would invest thier money at 1.25% interest.


If the governement allowed you to keep this money you could get 10~15% interest easy. If you are too stupid to restrain yourself from spending it you probably should starve in your old age.

Chip

[coda]

There never was any SS "Trust Fund".

So all those t-bills aren't a trust fund? Why not? Is your position that the Federal Government is likely to default on those bills? If not then how is this not (functionally) a trust fund which has invested in the US government?

[Don Lee]

Seen a Gallup Poll lately? Americans are not falling for Bush's BS.

That's the poll that said gore and kerry would win. Thank goodness polls aren't reliable.

I agree with you. Talk to Dutch Reagan - his administration started the pilaging of the SS "trust fund".

WRONG! It was Lyndon Johnson and the tax and spend controlled house and senate who took ss out of the trust fund and put it into the general fund so they could spend it.

BTW when Reagan was President it was the dems who controlled the house and senate. When the revenues from the tax cuts came they were like sharks on a feeding frenzy. Reagans bugets were never approved. Was it Tip O'Neal (obstructionist extrodinaire) who said Reagan's budget is 'dead on arrival'?

Don

[Spexvet]

WRONG! It was Lyndon Johnson and the tax and spend controlled house and senate who took ss out of the trust fund and put it into the general fund so they could spend it.

Following is my justification. It looks like the law allowing the government to spend the Social Security trust fund was signed into law by Reagan in 1983, so LBJ couldn't have spent it. Care to refute my evidence with facts of your own?

"Remember the last time (1983) we put the fate of Social Security in the hands of a commission of politicians, Wall Street economists and CEOs? President Reagan established the Greenspan commission to make recommendations for legislative changes to solve the Social Security crisis.

But it is now clear that the Greenspan commission gave us a huge back door tax increase that had nothing to do with strengthening Social Security. Instead, it levied a hefty surtax on wages and salaries and created a slush fund for Congress to spend more money without increasing the deficit."

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed...?issue_id=1857

BTW when Reagan was President it was the dems who controlled the house and senate. When the revenues from the tax cuts came they were like sharks on a feeding frenzy. Reagans bugets were never approved. Was it Tip O'Neal (obstructionist extrodinaire) who said Reagan's budget is 'dead on arrival'?

Don

That's right - a republican president is impotent. :hammer: When will republicans stop blaming everyone else for the bad things that happen? Reaganites in 1983: "It's the democratic congress' fault". Newt in 1995: "it's the democratic president's fault". Bush in 2004: "it's still the last democratic president's fault." I thought republicans were about accepting responsibility for your own actions. Another double standard?

[Don Lee]

Following is my justification. It looks like the law allowing the government to spend the Social Security trust fund was signed into law by Reagan in 1983, so LBJ couldn't have spent it. Care to refute my evidence with facts of your own?

YES! But I won't use my own facts. BTW the above quote must be taken in historical context. The spenders were the democrat controlled house and senate who would not allow anything President Reagan wanted unless they had their way first, i.e. signing their spending bills.

READ THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1965!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In it you'll find the following, along with many, many others, to be among the entitlements that LBJ, the democrat controlled house and senate decided should be paid by SS.

* Grants to States for Unemployment Compensation Administration
* Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans
* Temporary State Fiscal Relief WHAT??? Where would the money go?

* MEDICAID The the grand daddy of all abject failures. The black hole of all spending. It had great intentions besides getting votes for democrats. It's goal was to get people on their feet until they could work. It has done just the opposite. The number of people on the Medicaid entitlement rolls have increased every year. It created generations of government assisted deadbeats. To this day it takes hard earned money from the producers and gives it to the non producers who vote democrat. That alone has drained ss and put it on life support.


Hey, let's get rid of Medicaid and save ss.


Do you want more? OK.


* Block Grants to States for Social Services
* Grants for Planning Comprehensive Action to Combat Mental Retardation

Read the Social Security Act of 1965. You'll find more spending on non-ss related entitlements. I can't believe you don't remember this.

"Remember the last time (1983) we put the fate of Social Security in the hands of a commission of politicians, Wall Street economists and CEOs? President Reagan established the Greenspan commission to make recommendations for legislative changes to solve the Social Security crisis.

But it is now clear that the Greenspan commission gave us a huge back door tax increase that had nothing to do with strengthening Social Security. Instead, it levied a hefty surtax on wages and salaries and created a slush fund for Congress to spend more money without increasing the deficit."

This, too, must be read in historical context. Jack Kemp, whom you are quoting, is right. But who was in control of the house and senate and made the ultimate decision where the money would be spent? (HINT: I told you in my previous post)

DEMOCRATS!!!:drop:
The commission of politicians were democrats. They would not allow President Reagan to have any of his bills passed unless they had their way first and spending even more of ss money was part of it. I thought you'd be old enough to remember this, too. President Reagans' hands were tied.

That's right - a republican president is impotent. When will republicans stop blaming everyone else for the bad things that happen? Reaganites in 1983: "It's the democratic congress' fault".

I guess you don't remember the Carter administration. President Carter with a democrat controlled house and senate single handedly wrecked the US economy. Yes, it was the democrats fault.

Newt in 1995: "it's the democratic president's fault".

I don't know where you found that quote but if hillarycare had been passed it would have been a democrat presidents fault.

Bush in 2004: "it's still the last democratic president's fault." I thought republicans were about accepting responsibility for your own actions. Another double standard?

The Republicans do take responsibility for their actions.
There's no double standard. President Clinton is a fine example of taking responsibility. Newt Gingrich stepped down for having an affair NOT for lying to a grand jury. He took responsibility.

If it don't get 'dem' votes the dems are agin' it. Republicans are just trying to do what the American people who elected expect them to do.

Don

[rinselberg]

W is back up to a 50 percent approval rating, according to the latest Gallup data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

[Spexvet]

BTW the above quote must be taken in historical context.

Accept the responsibility. "taken in historical context" is an excuse.

READ THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1965!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be considerate and post the link, and I will.

This, too, must be read in historical context.

Excuse.

Jack Kemp, whom you are quoting, is right. But who was in control of the house and senate and made the ultimate decision where the money would be spent? (HINT: I told you in my previous post)

DEMOCRATS!!!

WRONG!

Congress.....97th
Years..........1981-1983
House..........Dem 243 / Rep 192
Senate.........Rep 53 / Dem 46
President......Reagan


Congress......98th
Years...........1983-1985
House...........Dem 267 / Rep 168
Senate..........Rep 55 / Dem 45
President...... Reagan

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1032.html

The Senate was controlled by the reps, as was the white house. Maybe you have another innaccurate excuse?

The commission of politicians were democrats.

WRONG!
It was a bipartison commision.

" Bob Myers, Executive Staff Director; Rep. Claude Pepper (D-FL); Martha Keys;Chairman Alan Greenspan; Mary Falvey Fuller; Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX); Lane Kirkland. Standing, left to right: Robert Beck; Bob Ball; Alexander Trowbridge; Rep. Barber Conable (R-NY); Sen. John Heinz (R-PA); Sen. Pat Moynihan (D-NY); Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS); Joe Waggonner, Jr. SSA History Archives"

http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html

They would not allow President Reagan to have any of his bills passed unless they had their way first and spending even more of ss money was part of it. I thought you'd be old enough to remember this, too. President Reagans' hands were tied.

So a democratic controlled House "would not allow" The President Of The United States Of America "to have any of his bills passed". That sound so silly, doesn't it? Especially considering the president was big, strong, tough-guy Dutch Reagan. He beat the Soviet Union, but couldn't handle the house of representatives. WOW!

I guess you don't remember the Carter administration. President Carter with a democrat controlled house and senate single handedly wrecked the US economy. Yes, it was the democrats fault.

I remember that Nixon froze prices and wages, and the economy that Carter inherited from Ford was in shambles. There - I gave you "republican predicessor blame" right back at ya! ;)

The Republicans do take responsibility for their actions.
There's no double standard. President Clinton is a fine example of taking responsibility. Newt Gingrich stepped down for having an affair NOT for lying to a grand jury. He took responsibility.

WRONG!

"WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, November 6) -- In the face of a brewing rebellion within the Republican Party over the disappointing midterm election, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made the stunning decision Friday to step down not just from the speakership, but also leave Congress."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...1/06/gingrich/

[Don Lee]

First of all I want to admit to being wrong about saying the democrats controlled the senate in 1981. The senate was indeed controlled by republicans I thought took control in 1984. My apologies.

Thank you for the chart about who controlled the senate and house.

Accept the responsibility. "taken in historical context" is an excuse.

I respectfully disagree. Historical context is appropriate and not an excuse.

Here are 2 links to the Social Security Act of 1965. The democrats opened the door for using the trust fund for social projects of all manner.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/



Parts of the act

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/comp-toc.htm

Congress.....

97th
Years..........1981-1983
House..........Dem 243 / Rep 192
Senate.........Rep 53 / Dem 46
President......Reagan


Congress......98th
Years...........1983-1985
House...........Dem 267 / Rep 168
Senate..........Rep 55 / Dem 45
President...... Reagan

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1032.html

The Senate was controlled by the reps, as was the white house. Maybe you have another innaccurate excuse?

However,
ALL REVENUE (SPENDING) BILLS MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573010_7/United_States_of_America.html



http://www.senat.fr/senatsdumonde/english/etats-unis.html



http://132.205.222.50/poli201js/lecture11_body.html



http://www.all.org/activism/cong01.htm

The democrat controlled house were responsible for cutting spending but that's not what they do. You can't blame the spending totally on President Reagan.

So a democratic controlled House "would not allow" The President Of The United States Of America "to have any of his bills passed". That sound so silly, doesn't it?

Not silly at all considering a tax and spend democrat house wanted to go mad with the revenues. Remember ALL REVENUE (SPENDING) BILLS MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Especially considering the president was big, strong, tough-guy Dutch Reagan. He beat the Soviet Union, but couldn't handle the house of representatives. WOW!

Thank goodness President Reagan didn't have to go through an irresponsible house of reps to make the point to Gorby.

I remember that Nixon froze prices and wages, and the economy that Carter inherited from Ford was in shambles. There - I gave you "republican predicessor blame" right back at ya!

No back at me all. The irresponsible House would not cut spending during Nixon and Ford. Consult your chart (above) and you notice that the democrats controlled the house and senate since Eisenhower. Why wouldn't they come up with responsible cost cutting budgets? Also, President Carter and his House tried taxing the U.S. into prosperity and made the inflation problem worse.

Don