An honest, though partisan, question
 

If you look at health care today, most of the elements of Hilary's plan have been implemented, through HIPAA and the Omnibus Reconcilation Act of 1997, plus the market heading in that general direction at the time. It's still seen as a disaster politically.

Form 180?
 

As long as we're clear . . .

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

2

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I was also saying that, yes. Not that I like it, but . . .

The Washington Post had a confusing poll yesterday (I think). A majority of people disapproved of "Bush's privatization plan", but a majority approved of the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their SS accounts into the stock market. Made me think people don't quite understand what's going on.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

This is why W started referring to his privatization plan as "personal accounts," and why his goons started complaining of media bias when the media called it privatization instead of personal accounts.

eta: I think you're right about people not understanding what's going on.

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
-- W, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005

An honest, though partisan, question
 

In his press conference this morning, the President admitted that privatization would not address the problems with SS; instead, they are now supposed to "soften the blow" of the changes necessary to address those problems. Not surprising that people don't know what's going on.

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Yes. I find the idea repulsive (b/c of the lack of income limitations) and so I'm not clear on the details.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

That's not clear to you?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

The transcript of my last motion hearing is way more disjointed then that. I won it, though. (Extemporaneous speech always looks like crap.)

(ETA - Okay, my extemporaneous speech always looks like crap. Puts me in good company, though.)

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Was he answering a question? For some reason, I would think he'd have something prepared on this topic. And, unlike you, he has teleprompters etc.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Well, the clarity of it, which is to say - and I'm not saying that this is the only issue, or even an issue, which may or may not - some people may disagree, with me and I understand that's a healthy thing, I understand that - which for example I think the good people of Iraq will also come to understand, is a driver for democracy that others will no doubt - and let me be perfectly clear on this, because you hear things in the media and read things in the papers, things that the good people of America and these boards have said that I think are just misrepresenting the point of the President's point on this issue, which I think has been somewhat better expressed by others.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Why should Roths be limited based on current income? You pay the tax at the relevant rate now, so it's the same for everyone. I'm offended that they're not available to everyone regardless of income. IRAs are, why not Roths too?

Wow.
 

"WASHINGTON (CSM) - Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant 'Great Satan' anti-American component. . . . The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that 'a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region.' He may have had it right."

Daniel Schorr, NPR host, in Christian Science Monitor.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Huge tax revenue hit. Just stick the money in a savings account. Recall that I'm not in favor of a flat tax -- this is an area of progressivity.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

It's always fun to catch people screwing up their log-ins. You forgot to enable your Ghost of John Kerry i.d.! Ha!

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Wouldn't that be a huge current revenue jump?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Only in the out years. The hit is 40 years on, when people start withdrawing. In fact, Roths are revenue positive, because they accelerate the tax revenue to today.

BTW, http://www.roth401k.com/

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Yes, that was also the genius of the Roth under the then-applicable paygo budget rules. The revenue increases (or is neutral) currently, and the revenue hit doesn't happen for years.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I'm not reading it. Seriously, it disgusts me, because I know who will be pushing for it and using it the most, and they fucking have enough money already -- they don't need even more tax incentives to save for retirement. Let me know what it says. I think it will be popular with executives 40 and up.

Form 180?
 

If the Security Council passes a resolution against Israel and we don't veto it, we should see that it is enforced. And we can see that they are enforced. The fact that we have not followed that policy is totally screwed our credibility in the world.

Form 180?
 

Not to benefit the UN but to benefit us. As long as we are part of the UN (And a permanent member of the security council) the UNs actions reflect on us.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

OK, I'm an idiot. Sorry. I still don't like them.

Form 180?
 

Thanks. For a minute there, I thought my point was more opaque than I intended.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Watch. By the time the major withdrawals start, the law will change, and there will be a tax imposed.

Form 180?
 

I don't give a rats ass what the General Assembly does or says.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Not if your people are in power. But, fuck, like I always say, I make plenty of money (such that I have enough to save sufficiently and/or pay handsomely for euthanasia) and have no kids.

Good News for Fox News
 

http://www.variety.com/VR1117919604.html

(CNN signs Larry King through 2009)

CNN really needs to jettison this guy. Honestly, one of the ways I even became aware of Fox News was channel surfing, looking for something other than Larry King. The linked article mentions his numerous important interview subjects and moments, but on a day to day basis, his show is typically insignificant gossip. Sure, he's interviewed presidents, but when you tune in he's interviewing a Tammy Faye or Elizabeth Taylor or some attorney with insights on the MJ case. It's enough to drive me over to Hannity & Colmes or whatever Springerian freak show they're showing on Fox. The King is dead, but CNN keeps saying "long live the King."

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I tend to agree with this. Both parties have said that SS needs reform for so long that -- while this plan may die -- Bush is not going to be widely excoriated for his proposed reforms. Also -- I haven't seen the sort of backlash/ad campaigns/focus of all politics on this issue the way it was with the Clinton efforts to enact healthcare reform in 1993-94.

Perhaps because the nation has many other concerns. The world has changed since then. Also, Bush is a second term President from the party controlling Congress, and was very cagey for quite a while in pushing the idea without really pushing too much and said he's open to (most) ideas. Clinton, by contrast, got out in people's faces and led with his chin.

It could also be that -- all electioneering aside -- the portion of the left who wishes to smear and destroy Bush at almost all costs is smaller, weaker, less effective, etc. than that portion of the right which worked that issue against Clinton.

S_A_M

An honest, though partisan, question
 

If "my people" are in power, and still following the philosophy of today, they will be spending like (kudos to GiGi) drunken sailors, and casting about for places to extract money to pay for it. All of those "tax-free" withdrawals will suddenly look surprisingly like income to them.

Arnold Quiz
 

You're probably right about the evidence -- but there are some timing issues for Arnold as well. I picked a poor example.

But isn't AS the Republican and Gray Davis the Dem? Or are you talking about your wagers on Hillary.

S_A_M

An honest, though partisan, question
 

That was his chin?

(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. You put in a long, thoughtful post, most of which I agree with, and that's all I can find to say? There's no excuse for me.)

Arnold Quiz
 

I was speaking of Arnold's sort of faux-Republicanness.

Republicanity?

Form 180?
 

If it became necessary to destroy the UN in order to save it, they were willing to take that risk.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

But deficits are good. Your people will probably start cutting (spending) like crazy instead of raising taxes.

ETA "spending" and to say that the jackass in the office next to mine is way fucking too fucking loud. IF YOU ARE ON THE SPEAKERPHONE, SHUT YOUR DOOR. No wonder the tax people don't want him on their floor.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

What's the minimum that Bush can get for this to be a win for him? Any "reform" counts?

Form 180?
 

I don't think anyone really does. But the Security Council is another matter (as long as we are a permanent member with the power of the veto).

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Unless I'm quite mistaken, the salary for a junior enlisted soldier (E-4 and below), won't take a family of four above the poverty line. The benefits help some (PX, AAFES grocery shopping, health care) -- but (I think) there are tens of thousands of junior enlisted families that qualify for and receive AFDC.

That, Burger, is one reason why military pay and benefits might could use to be somewhat higher. (Although you could also take the position that young junior soldiers should not get married or have children. Good luck.)

S_A_M

An honest, though partisan, question
 

He's been sufficiently vague that anything can be characterized as a win. The Clintons' big mistake was actually having a detailed proposal. More fools them.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Does AFDC still exist? Why don't the spouses have to work? There are all kinds of full-time jobs that won't pull a family of four above the poverty line.

I'm just devil's advocating while waiting to do a call I don't want to have to do.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

That pretty much sums up my life.