Bush Gives A Gut Punch to the Middle

26 X World Champs · 05-02-05, 10:34 PM

I really am starting to believe that Bush is delusional! Did you watch his Press Conference last Thursday? He is so out of touch with reality. He cuts taxes to the rich while at the same time he cuts Medicaire for the poor. His answer to our oil dependency is to use what he calls the fuel of the future, COAL! He nominates the one man on record as being totally anti-UN to be our ambassador to the UN. Scary, very, very scary.

In today's NY Times Paul Krugman wrote a seriously upsetting OP-ED piece about Bush's Social Security Dismemberment Plan. While on paper it's truly evil, it has no chance of ever passing. This is what I mean by delusional. First he spends 60 days and God knows how much money traveling around promoting a pathetic SS Private Account plan that after 60 days all of 33% of America got behind. I think Bush could have promoted anything and 33% would agree! Here's the piece, let's all get together after reading this and do what we do best, Bash Bush over another really STUPID attempt at screwing the masses!

Quote:

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 2, 2005

By now, every journalist should know that you have to carefully check out any scheme coming from the White House. You can't just accept the administration's version of what it's doing. Remember, these are the people who named a big giveaway to logging interests "Healthy Forests."

Sure enough, a close look at President Bush's proposal for "progressive price indexing" of Social Security puts the lie to claims that it's a plan to increase benefits for the poor and cut them for the wealthy. In fact, it's a plan to slash middle-class benefits; the wealthy would barely feel a thing.

Under current law, low-wage workers receive Social Security benefits equal to 49 percent of their wages before retirement. Under the Bush scheme, that wouldn't change. So benefits for the poor would be maintained, not increased.

The administration and its apologists emphasize the fact that under the Bush plan, workers earning higher wages would face cuts, and they talk as if that makes it a plan that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. But the rich wouldn't feel any pain, because people with high incomes don't depend on Social Security benefits.

Cut an average worker's benefits, and you're imposing real hardship. Cut or even eliminate **** Cheney's benefits, and only his accountants will notice.

I asked Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to calculate the benefit cuts under the Bush scheme as a percentage of pre-retirement income. That's a way to see who would really bear the burden of the proposed cuts. It turns out that the middle class would face severe cuts, but the wealthy would not.

The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.

But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.

In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Beyond that, it's a good bet that benefits for the poor would eventually be cut, too.

It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts.

You can see this happening right now to Medicaid, the nation's most important means-tested program. Last week Congress agreed on a budget that cuts funds for Medicaid (and food stamps), even while extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. States are cutting back, denying health insurance to hundreds of thousands of people with low incomes. Missouri is poised to eliminate Medicaid completely by 2008.

If the Bush scheme goes through, the same thing will eventually happen to Social Security. As Mr. Furman points out, the Bush plan wouldn't just cut benefits. Workers would be encouraged to divert a large fraction of their payroll taxes into private accounts - but this would in effect amount to borrowing against their future benefits, which would be reduced accordingly.

As a result, Social Security as we know it would be phased out for the middle class.

"For millions of workers," Mr. Furman writes, "the amount of the monthly Social Security check would be at or near zero."

So only the poor would receive Social Security checks - and regardless of what today's politicians say, future politicians would be tempted to reduce the size of those checks.

The important thing to understand is that the attempt to turn Social Security into nothing but a program for the poor isn't driven by concerns about the future budget burden of benefit payments. After all, if Mr. Bush was worried about the budget, he would be reconsidering his tax cuts.

No, this is about ideology: Mr. Bush comes to bury Social Security, not to save it. His goal is to turn F.D.R.'s most durable achievement into an unpopular welfare program, so some future president will be able to attack it with tall tales about Social Security queens driving Cadillacs.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Squawker · 05-02-05, 10:42 PM

Krugman is a partisan hack Champ. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

26 X World Champs · 05-02-05, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

Krugman is a partisan hack Champ. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

Partisan or not, his FACTs regarding Bush's diabolical SS Plan are very disturbing. I'm not saying he isn't anti-Bush. What I am saying is that you can be anti something and still be objective if the facts that you're using are accurate.

For example, what facts in this piece are not true?

sebastiansdreams · 05-03-05, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

Partisan or not, his FACTs regarding Bush's diabolical SS Plan are very disturbing. I'm not saying he isn't anti-Bush. What I am saying is that you can be anti something and still be objective if the facts that you're using are accurate.

For example, what facts in this piece are not true?

So then all the **** you endlessly feed me about not being able to provide numbers from a non-partisan source is all irrelevent as long as it is you who is doing it? I agree with you, IN THIS POST, because you are stating what I have been working off of all along. Just because the point being made happens to come from someone who is partisan, does not mean that the numbers and statistics they provide are false. You, however, show hypocracy.
Okay, now that I'm done with all that, I have a question for the rest of you. How many of us in the forum believe that Bush is honestly maniacle and devicive, verses how many of us just think he is a very stupid man with good inentions and the wrong crowd? (Or I guess you can argue both points...good luck on that one).

26 X World Champs · 05-03-05, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastiansdreams

So then all the **** you endlessly feed me about not being able to provide numbers from a non-partisan source is all irrelevent as long as it is you who is doing it? I agree with you, IN THIS POST, because you are stating what I have been working off of all along. Just because the point being made happens to come from someone who is partisan, does not mean that the numbers and statistics they provide are false. You, however, show hypocracy.

I am talking about FACTS, not about some right wing christian website that is prejudiced in the FACTS they are reporting. Big, big difference. You don't use facts! Use facts and I will never dispute you. You're also not being very christian by attacking me, again, in your posts. It sure seems like you get off on spitting venom my way. If it does give you an erection please go right ahead and keep it up (get it?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastiansdreams

Okay, now that I'm done with all that, I have a question for the rest of you. How many of us in the forum believe that Bush is honestly maniacle and devicive, verses how many of us just think he is a very stupid man with good inentions and the wrong crowd? (Or I guess you can argue both points...good luck on that one).

Great choices to make in a President? Despot or Moron. To suggest that he's so stupid that he's not responsible for his actions is pathetic.

He knows exactly what he's doing, he's lining the pockets of his cronies at the expense of the rest of us!

sebastiansdreams · 05-03-05, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

I am talking about FACTS, not about some right wing christian website that is prejudiced in the FACTS they are reporting. Big, big difference. You don't use facts! Use facts and I will never dispute you. You're also not being very christian by attacking me, again, in your posts. It sure seems like you get off on spitting venom my way. If it does give you an erection please go right ahead and keep it up (get it?)

Great choices to make in a President? Despot or Moron. To suggest that he's so stupid that he's not responsible for his actions is pathetic.

He knows exactly what he's doing, he's lining the pockets of his cronies at the expense of the rest of us!

You mean that noted (even elsewhere) archeological finds are not "FACT?" Or numbers given by pro-life supporters are false, simply based on them being against abortion? Facts are facts man, doesn't matter where they come from. This is very obviously not a down the center report that you presented, so can I say that your source is some left wing anarchist? That's ridiculous, just as your attacks on my sources. As far as my Christianity is concerned, it is not you I am attacking. It is simply your swaying logic. I am holding you accountable to your claims, and if that hurts your feelings I am sorry. If it makes you think I hate you, I don't. I'm simply attempting to show you your hypocracy so that you will stop attacking me for doing the exact same thing you and everyone else on this forum does, site facts from various organizations and websites to support a case. As long as they are not blatant lies, then why can that source not be trusted?

As far as Bush goes, I was not suggesting that he was too stupid to be held accountable, everyone should be held accountable no matter how high or low their intellect. But, what I was suggesting is whether or not he himself is the puppet master, or the strings apply to him too.

akyron · 05-03-05, 10:48 PM

PAUL KRUGMAN, TIMES COLUMNIST, DECLARED INSANE
CATEGORY: Media
Famed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, shouting “I’m just as sane as any other liberal,” was dragged off to Bellevue Mental Hospital this morning after it became clear he had gone stark, raving mad.

“If you want my professional opinion, he’s as loony as a June bug,” declared Dr. Ishmael Ahab, Director of Clinical Psychiatry at the famed institution. “Right now, he’s resting comfortably in our deluxe ‘rubber room’ where he’ll stay until his symptoms moderate.

Dr. Ahab said those symptoms included paranoid delusions, frothing at the mouth, excessive talking, and according to sources “barking like a sick puppy at the moon.”

Daniel Okrent, readers representative for the Times said that Krugman’s current column entitled “What’s Going On” in which Krugman posits the theory that Christian conservatives are going to start assassinating liberals will not be pulled from later editions.

“Just because he’s nuts doesn’t mean he’s wrong,” said Okrent. “We run stuff from loons all the time. Look at Maureen Dowd”

Okrent is referring to another well-known Times columnist who, while not declared officially insane, is reportedly under 24 hour suicide watch due to a lack of sex and a hatred of men.

Krugman’s column, which appears in newspapers nationwide, gives several clues as to how the famed liberal’s mind slowly degenerated into what Dr. Ahab calls “a persistent moonbat state or PMS.”

Funny stuff
Partisanship on both sides obviously

He has a funny debate with Bill O'Reilly that degenerates to a
"You lie. No you do." contest.

Here is another Paul Krugman, Around the Bend

26 X World Champs · 05-03-05, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastiansdreams

You mean that noted (even elsewhere) archeological finds are not "FACT?" Or numbers given by pro-life supporters are false, simply based on them being against abortion?

Your archaeological site was a Christian biased site. You were unable to provide any mainstream site. Your pro-life numbers were inaccurate, and you know it.

To compare a religiously biased site to the NY Times seems to me to be a slam dunk...sorry....NY Times vs. Right to Life Sites? Slam dunk again.

sebastiansdreams · 05-03-05, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

Your archaeological site was a Christian biased site. You were unable to provide any mainstream site. Your pro-life numbers were inaccurate, and you know it.

To compare a religiously biased site to the NY Times seems to me to be a slam dunk...sorry....NY Times vs. Right to Life Sites? Slam dunk again.

No I wasn't. Did you not see that in that thread I posted like eight seperate sites all saying the same thing, and none of them with Christian lean. And the site is irrelevant, the idea is that there is always going to be slant. But just because there is slant does not make something not true. Believe me, I would not post something if I even susptected in not to be true. If I didn't think those were the numbers I would not have posted them, but it was the only site I could find in my search that provided the statistics I was looking for. I am honestly not lying to you just to prove the point. I just went with the things I could find.

26 X World Champs · 05-03-05, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastiansdreams

No I wasn't. Did you not see that in that thread I posted like eight seperate sites all saying the same thing, and none of them with Christian lean. And the site is irrelevant, the idea is that there is always going to be slant. But just because there is slant does not make something not true. Believe me, I would not post something if I even susptected in not to be true. If I didn't think those were the numbers I would not have posted them, but it was the only site I could find in my search that provided the statistics I was looking for. I am honestly not lying to you just to prove the point. I just went with the things I could find.

I never thought you were lying. I think, as you just stated, you found a site that supported what you said, ignoring all the other sites that disputed what you said.