My favorite Line of the night:

Bush: "By 2042 social security will be bankrupt."

Crowd (well OK the left): NO

Man, everyone's commented on Bush's smirk, but in that picture you put up he looks ten times as smarmy as he usually does. I can't see anything in that face but smug, disgusting self-satisfaction. And to think there are people who go into vapors over Bush's manliness. What do people see in this little shit?

Did you see the part (referring to Social Security) when Junior says "I will listen to anyone who offers and honest proposal/solution". In classic smirk style W looks over at the Democrats and Cheney damn near kills himself trying to squelch his contemptuous outloud laughter. Best line of the whole speech...plus he said he would listen and not really do any of the things others propose. Worst. Crookedist. Administration. EVer! They don't even try to hide the dishonesty anymore because it is not as if the Right Wing Corporate Media is going to "report" on it.

I saw in NBC do a report right afterword on Social Security and it was right out of Bushes mouth and the republican playbook. We don't have an honest administration or corporate media anymore.

Watching C-Span, I noticed that the Dems and GOP moderates that disagreed or showed only lukewarm approval of Bush's talking points got very little camera time in the applause breaks.

My wife, who's reading a book while this is on, asks me why she keeps hearing this muttering grumble from the TV. I'm surfing at the same time and it finally occurs to me that the Democrats are actually booing the President. (we all know that they were actually shouting NO now)

Someone asked a few days ago about when C-Sapn switched it's calling line titles from "Supporting the Republicans" to "Supporting President Bush". The changes were still there last night.

I hate the TV talking heads that do instant analysis on the networks, but if C-Span's coverage is going to be this lousy I may have to switch back or just quit watching political events on the tube.

Perhaps CSPAN is doing that old fashioned thing known as being polite.

As for SS, doing nothing means reduced benefits. By 2042 retirees will get only 70 cents on the dollar. Is that OK with anyone?

I do want my kids to be able to own part of their contributions instead of forking it over to me (or you).

It galls people that Bush might get credit for a reform to SS. Let's find a way to do it and let someone else get the credit.

I do want my kids to be able to own part of their contributions instead of forking it over to me (or you).

Well, gee, Ava. I guess you don't mind that the extra taxes what we all paid for over 20 years to make SS sound would instead of being used to fund our retirements would now be used to fund tax cuts for the obscenely wealthly. Your kids are going to be paying for the debt accrued to shovel money to those who don't need it. Nice that you are thinking of them.

did anyone notice this AP report from earlier in the week?

New Social Security study finds more elbow room

WASHINGTON A new analysis of the Social Security system gives it a little more breathing room.

It says it will be 2020, rather than 2018, before more money is paid out than comes in.

The study from the Congressional Budget Office also says Social Security trust funds will last until 2052 -- ten years longer than estimated by the Social Security Board of Trustees.

The new analysis is unlikely to have much impact on the debate over the system, which President Bush is pushing hard to overhaul. His proposal for private investment accounts has been a lightning rod.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Granted, the final paragraph is somewhat nonsensical, but shouldn't a president be held accountable for another CBO data point that comes out before the SOTU speech, even if its facts get in the way of his "good story" about an impending "crisis" in social security?

Ava, it's the same proposal that Clinton proposed back during his last term. So, lets give the credit to Bill . Fine with me. "Democrat Genious solves Social Security Crisis." Lets get this implemented.

Gee Muck, Clinton could have been wrong, you know....and as the story says, it is different from what Clinton was proposing in some ways.

I started bwahahaing when I heard this part of the speech: "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. ... " to the "We will make sure...."s Essentially, he said, you can't trust the government NOT to take away your money, but you can trust the government to keep the corporations from taking your money. I'm sorry, but I'd rather my money is with people I can vote out of office than in the hands of Wall Street.

It needs to be pointed out that the framing is currently within the Bush context. For example, we keep hearing the 2042 figure(likely wrong) as the date SS goes broke(completely wrong). 2042 is only correct if the federal government's low range projections are used. If the economy stays bad for the next 35 years then, and only then would 2042 be correct. And in 2042 it wouldn't be broke, it would still pay out 73% of current, inflation adjusted benefits.

It is as likely that there will NEVER be a problem with SS for that is what the fed's high range projections predict. The truth is probabally in the middle and normally governments and businesses use mid range projections for planning. The current mid range projections predict that benefits would be at 82% of today's level after 2052.

In other words, there most likely WON'T be a problem with SS until after mid century and the problem won't be as bad as Bush claims. He is using low range projections whereas the accepted standard (and as an MBA he's supposed to know this) is mid range. But as we've seen again and again Bu$hco prefers fear over facts.

Its always back to Clinton with the Right. Use Clinton when it somehow excuses Bush, blame Clinton for everything else. When,you may ask, will George W. Bush ever be accountable for anything??? Never. If they passed Bush's Steal My Retirement Money plan today, and it failed miserably (which it will) they will Blame Clinton. No WMD in Iraq? Well, Clinton said there was, too. Gee, you'd think that Clinton was still president. We should be so lucky.

Ava,

Typical talking points. 70% is definitely the low range of the ballpark, in reality its more like 80%, which is quite a bit more the "bankrupt" Mr. Idiot keeps telling us. Of course this all hinges upon us having 1-2% in the economy over the next 40 years, if growth is more, Social Security will remain solvent way past my retirement (year 2049, at 65). But of course he predicts at the same time 7-8% growth in the stock market. Explain that for me. The only way it could possibly happen is through the sideways economics of the Reagan years, take from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood in reverse. Of course poverty among the masses was exactly what social security was created for right, so privatization isn't exactly serving its purpose.

And Muck, you have to remember that Clinton proposal happened in the market mania 90's, remember when the "New Economy" was going to make us a limitless society. Have we not learned anything over the course of the last four years?

Damn it, I need more coffee. Of course poverty among the masses was exactly what social security was trying to prevent .

Also, as I believe Mary mentioned, if the toppers were to accept 80% of their tax breaks, instead of the full %100 then all this ballyhooed Social Security problem would be fixed right up.

Ya, Chris, we learned that the stock market returns about 7-10% a year over the long term, not 25%.

(I hope you homeowners realize that housing prices generally grow about the same as inflation over the long term.)

Hey, T2, I've done almost nothing but praise Bill Clinton on this board!

* Clinton signed NAFTA.

* Clinton signed Roth IRA legislation.

* Clinton signed-in a HUGE tax cut when he exempted capital gains taxes from the sale of one's primary residence.

* Clinton also eliminated the source tax, so if you worked and lived in CA during your career years and retire in Nevada or any other lower-taxed state, CA can't come hunt you down to collect taxes.

Woowoo! And he came up with a way to privatize social security. Bush is stealing his idea, and repackaging it as his own.

Muck,
Did you realize that out of the last 100 years, 60 of those years there was zero growth in the stock market. So if you factor in inflation, you could end up with even less money than you initially put in.

I've done almost nothing but praise Bill Clinton on this board!

I'd take Bill Clinton and his moral failings back over this schmuck in a heartbeat.

Ga6, you're going to have to do better than that. The market returns 7-10% per year over the long term. There is no rolling 20-yr period where stocks lost money.

I recommend you read Jeremy Siegal's book, "Stocks for the Long Run."

I'd take Bill Clinton and his social security privatization plan right now. Lets do it. (It's the same plan that Bush is proposing. Maybe Bush can get his dad and Clinton out on a promotion, like he did for tsunami relief.)

Muck,
Yes, that is the long term, however, if you had invested money in 1962, you would have had no increases until 1982. I'll have to come back with the source. Most people are going to have money during in the market during the 20 year periods where there was zero growth.

According to John Mueller, former economic counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives' Republican Caucus, the 20-year average real return on the stock market fell to zero three times since 1900--from 1901 to 1921, from 1928 to 1948, and from 1962 to 1982 - or 60 years out of the last 100 (60%). This means that money invested at the beginning of each period would be worth more or less the same after 20 years.

To top all this off, Bush is recommending, according to the Washington Post a 3.3% surcharge.

Even Business Week acknowledges that it would take 100 years to realize returns on Bush's ss scheme. So if you start at 18, you'll be able to realize the 7% percent return you are talking about when you are 118 years old!

Well, lets pretend you're right. It'll still make my point. The "break even" numbers you cite are with the stock market averaging 7-10% a year. Now lets use "real return" on the existing system's 1-2% average return.

Ouch. That'd be deep in the red. Year after year.

Now, that's just pretending you're right.

You have to really use some "date gymnastics" to find 20 year periods that break even. None lose money. I don't know if you're numbers include reinvested dividends, compounding of interest over the long term, or tax deferral considerations. You weren't specific. Considering most workers hit the workforce at age 18, that's around a 50-year period of working and contributing. I doubt you'll find a 50-yr period of negative stock market returns. Do a Google search.

In addition, I haven't looked at all of the specifics, but would the Social Security money be subject to current taxation, or would the money be tax deferred until you take it out? If it's tax deferred, like your 401k, then you're saving money right from the start because you don't pay federal or state taxes on it. In a state like CA, that can be a 35-40% return on day 1.

Finaly, under the current system, it's just a matter of time before it goes broke. Unless, taxes are raised. There's more negative return right there. More of your money into a system that returns a negative real rate of return.

The current system has good intentions, just a lousy implementation. Lets fix it.

The problem Muck is that most people won't live long enough to realize the returns you are suggesting.

The ss program will be able to pay full benefits until 2042 according to the CBO. That's 37 years from now. Don't you think we should wait until we get someone who is responsible with money and knows the value of a dollar before doing anything?

Oh, and Bush is proposing a minimum of 4.5 in additional spending that doesn't even include the War in Iraq.

Lifting the caps would help solve the SS problem. Anyhow, why should movie stars and millionaire athletes pay less of a percentage of their income than the average "joe six pack."

Ga6, your assumptions are wrong. It's tough to have a rational debate with you when you're not up to speed on financial matters. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you're interested in learning something, try reading Jeremy Siegal's "Stocks for the Long Run." I hope this helps!

muck your bullshit and dishonesty is astounding. Bush and Clinton's plans are so different in the most key components of them and your failing to mention it is ridiculous.

Clinton proposed using budget surpluses to invest into the market as ADD ONS to the current social security insurance system. Add ons....in addition to the baseline guaranteed benefits of the current system. It was more riskier but he thought it might be worth it because we could "afford" to look at taking that risk because we actually ran budget surpluses and were paying down the debt. But those days are long gone muck. Clinton's first priority was to use the surpluses to improve retirement BEFORE any tax cuts to the wealthy. If I am not mistaken, nothing passed congress because both parties couldn't agree...republicans wanted a lockbox that couldn't be raided including for Medicare and Medicaid budget issues and democrats were afraid of that. Funny how Bushies and the republicans raided the lockbox ( the same one they were proposing) to pay for Junior's tax cuts and WAr though...only took him a year to ask Paul O'Neil to ask Congress to borrow from the Social Security surpluses.

Bush is proposing diverting funds away from the current system to REPLACE it ...not save it or keep with in it's current guaranteed baseline form... a risky maneuver considering we don't have any "surpluses" or extra cash on hand to try and take this risk and gamble with the stock market. Remember Junior's first priority coming into office with REthug congressional majorities was they felt wealthy people and corporate Amercians needed another Lexus and vacation home instead of retirement security for the masses. REmember they thought that tax cuts to the wealthy would increase tax revenue...but as history has shown that was wrong too.....Idiots.

Okay, Muck, I guess I win since your response is "read this book."

You're just not up to speed, Ga6. Your talking points are invalid. Try telling Warren Buffett or John Bogle "You can't make money in a diversified portfolio of stocks." Good luck! They'd laugh you off the planet, son.

It's not your fault. I don't blame you anymore than I blame a 6-yr old for not understanding calculus.

Books are a great way to get educated. You should try reading some. Start with the one I mentioned. I think you might like it. It'd blow holes through that "stocks don't make money" tripe.

ga6thDem... be grateful at least he didn't pull out an article or quote by Donald Luskin or Larry Kudlow.

muck, maybe you should try reading facts and budget numbers from the CBO that totally blow away your Trickle down economics beliefs..really you should try it you might like it, but I wouldn't want your Head to explode or anything. fool's gold muck, fool's gold.

post at 3:31 was me.

Maybe you're right, Emal. Maybe after you factor in the "real return" after inflation, Warren Buffett hasn't made even one dime in the stock market.

hahahahahahhahahahahahahah

Muck,
LOL, these are people who had a ton of money in the stock market, they aren't your average small investor. You can't diversify that much with small amounts. Heck, even Bush doesn't want the small amounts in the privatization plan.

Muck, I actually have money in the market. And the market has sucked big time for about 4 years now. One of my mistakes was listening to so called "financial gurus". Like I said, they are the ones that put my money into TYCO. Even if you have a number of stocks in the mutual fund, there always seems to be a couple in that suck enough to drag your investment down.

You sound like you have never had any money in the market.

Muck, I think you are the one who has out of date talking points. I guess you still have Dow Jones 60,000 besides your bed? Or what ever the heck the name of that laughable book is.

Anyhow, all of this is pretty much a moot point. Bush is changing what he wants to do yet again. It looks like the whole thing is DOA.

muck maybe you're right, even one of my neighbors won a million dollars on a $5 dollar scratch ticket once..good point, time for all of us to go spend money on scratch tickets....I'll file that under hahahahahhahahahaha!

muck, oh yeah, why don't you tell that story about Buffet to Senator Frist. I am sure he would be glad to hear that after losing $500,000....but I guess it is a risk some people are willing to take.

I don't want to take my guaranteed retirement insurance plan and take that risk.

Apparantly, you're unaware of diversification and the Total Stock Market fund and/or ETF. Plenty of diversification there for the small investor. Or large investor.

let's not put words in clinton's mouth.

here's what he said about social security in the 1998 SOTU:

"Save Social Security first."

If we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years immediately afterward. What should we do with this projected surplus?

I have a simple four word answer: Save Social Security first.

Tonight, I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus -- that's every penny of any surplus -- until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st Century.

Let us say to all Americans watching tonight -- whether you are 70 or 50 -- or whether you just began to pay into the system -- Social Security will be there when you need it. Social Security first. Let us do that together.

I urge all Americans to join us -- in facing these issues squarely, and forming a true consensus on how to proceed. We'll start by conducting nonpartisan forums in every, region of the country, and I hope that lawmakers of both parties will participate. We will host a White House conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now, I will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic, bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark for our generation -- a Social Security system that is strong in the 21st Century.

In an economy that honors opportunity, all Americans must be able to reap the rewards of prosperity.

Because these times are good, we can afford to take one simple, sensible step to help millions of workers struggling to provide for their families: We should raise the minimum wage.

so unlike the present dear leader, there were NO specific proposals, just a statement of where the projected surplus should be devoted first.

Why did you just appeal to authority, muckdog? There are actual points you could attempt to make, and you didn't even try. Plus, if you actually, oh, examined the state of economics today, you'd find that most economics professors are socialists/marxists. And they are an authority on the market every bit as much as your author is.