2 Ejected from State of the Union for wearing "message" T-shirts

[matthewcline 0]

Was there one?

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Gee, I think you got his point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[matthewcline 0]

Yeah I know I wish there was sacastic looking icon.


I would get blamed for over using it though.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

I am not sure a question like that can be sarcastic, but I will take your word for it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[matthewcline 0]

If you knew me you would know I am rarely not sarcastic.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Where can we find the Democrat plan to save Social Security?

For them it is not broken "now". Gotta wait until they are in power so they can blame the Reps and then take credit for the fix

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Where can we find the Democrat plan to save Social Security?

For them it is not broken "now". Gotta wait until they are in power so they can blame the Reps and then take credit for the fix

Washington (sorry, Newsmax didn't run it) Post
Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page B02


The latest Social Security Trustees' Report, whose numbers even the White House uses, predicts that the Social Security program can pay all promised benefits for the next 38 years -- with no changes at all. The June 2004 estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all promised benefits without changes for even longer, until 2052. That's nearly half a century.

And we are supposed to be worried about this? It brings to mind the image of Woody Allen as a nerdy young child in "Annie Hall," becoming suddenly depressed because he has discovered that "the universe is expanding" and life on Earth is ultimately doomed.


Granted, 38 years is not an eternity. But even after 2042, the Social Security trustees say they will be able to pay an average benefit that is actually higher than what workers receive today -- indefinitely. That's in 2004 dollars -- adjusted for inflation.

Social Security benefits are programmed to rise not only with price inflation, but also with wages. So Congress will at some point have to increase taxes or shave the benefits promised to future generations. But that's no different from what's been done before. In fact the projected shortfall for the next 75 years is smaller than shortfalls covered by adjustments in each of the following decades: the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s. It is also about one-third the size of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration.

In other words, it's a non-issue. Or should be. Yet most Americans seem terribly confused about the basic facts. During the third presidential debate last fall, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS told the candidates that Social Security was "running out of money." Neither candidate corrected him, and the press did not note the error.

Here are some of the obfuscations and accounting tricks -- or misunderstandings -- that have created false impressions about Social Security's finances:

The disappearing trust fund: Some people say that Social Security will run into trouble in 2018. But this is like saying that Bill Gates will be strapped if he works only part time. He will still have $40 billion in assets, enough to keep him living well for a long time.

Similarly, the Social Security trust fund will have more than $3.7 trillion in today's dollars in 2018. Combined with payroll tax revenues, that is enough to cover promised benefits until 2042, the trustees' report says.

"That money's all been spent": When anyone lends money to the federal government by buying a bond, the government spends it. But the government still pays interest and repays what it borrowed. That goes for the Social Security trust fund. Social Security has been running annual surpluses (now at more than $150 billion) since 1983. By law it must invest that surplus in U.S. Treasury obligations.

"But the trust fund is only holding I.O.U.'s -- just pieces of paper!" Another canard: All bonds are I.O.U.'s. Those "pieces of paper" are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has never, ever defaulted on its bonds.

"The baby boomers' retirement will bankrupt Social Security." Far from it. The first boomers actually begin retiring in 2008. Most of them will be dead before Social Security faces any financial difficulties.

"There are currently 3.3 workers paying into Social Security for every beneficiary; by 2035, there will be only 2.1." True enough, but deceptive and not scary as it sounds. Productivity (output per hour) will grow substantially during the same period, so we won't need nearly as many working people to support a larger retired population.

"If nothing is done, Social Security and Medicare will eat up 90 percent of our federal budget by 2050." The trick here is throwing in Medicare, a separate program. The projected costs of Medicare are indeed out of control -- a result of spiraling health care costs. This makes a strong case for health care reform, but that has nothing to do with Social Security.

The bottom line is that Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history, according to Social Security trustees' numbers. If workers in 2050, who will be earning on average 68 percent more in real, inflation-adjusted dollars than they are today, have to pay 1 or 2 percent more of their income in taxes -- as they have in the past -- they won't be able to complain much. They will still enjoy higher living standards than we do today. And Social Security will provide much larger real annual benefits for longer retirements when their turn comes.

The impending crisis of Social Security is a myth. Without it, however, Bush's initiative to slash benefits and partially privatize the program wouldn't have a prayer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I feel sorry for her, but dang she's gone over the edge.

Quote

That she has, I could never claim to understand her pain from the loss of her son...but I do question her motives.
She did after all abandon him some years back, and though she says she 'speaks for him'

He DID re-up his military commitment while the country was at war. Certainly he must have known the seriousness of that, and did so out of love for his country.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The impending crisis of Social Security is a myth. Without it, however, Bush's initiative to slash benefits and partially privatize the program wouldn't have a prayer.

***

We need the extra $$$...

Got any idea how much it costs to overthrow a government?!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rushmc 18]

OK, so why did the Dems saying it was going bust during the Clinton years (I don't give a dam about Clinton here except he was the last Dem in the Oval orafice)

And if the numbers are correct why wait until the last minute just raise taxes?

It has been PROVEN one more time that lower taxes rasies government revenues! (Yes, it is going on right now) The deficit is from irresponcible spending by both parties (but I hold the Reps to account here as they are in power)

Add the this that the private sector always does better than government running any program. But, polititions want to have the money go through thier hands first

Medicare, well that is a whole nother mess that has to be delt with


So, I still think something should be done sooner than later

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

It has been PROVEN one more time that lower taxes rasies government revenues! (Yes, it is going on right now)

Really? Show me your proof, because US Treasury data show the opposite.

I expect you've forgotten "Read my lips, no new taxes", and why he had to renege on his promise.

Edited to add www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1178550#1178550

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

He went back on his promise and lost the next election because of it (as he should have)

Kenedy lowered taxes, revenues went up
Regan lowered taxes , the treasurey set records.
Bush II lowered taxes, more money is coming into the coffers than before the taxes were lowered (and will set new records in the next two years)

Why is that so hard for you to believe??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

She did after all abandon him some years back

How did she abandon him? If you'e talking about the story that she was a non-custodial divorced mother, that's not true. She still married to his father after 29 years (although her over-the edged-ness seems to be causing a divorce).

That was a different person.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

He went back on his promise and lost the next election because of it (as he should have)

Kenedy lowered taxes, revenues went up
Regan lowered taxes , the treasurey set records.
Bush II lowered taxes, more money is coming into the coffers than before the taxes were lowered (and will set new records in the next two years)

Why is that so hard for you to believe??

Where's your proof? These data from the CBO show otherwise

Year   Revenues      Expenditures    On-budget surplus 

2000  2,025.2        1,788.8             86.6   

2001 1,991.2         1,863.8            -33.3    

2002 1,853.2         2,011.0            -317.5  

2003 1,782.3         2,157.6            -536.1

They show revenues declining after Bush's tax cuts. And, of course, in typical Republican fashion, expenditures and deficits rose.

And Bush (41) HAD to raise taxes because revenues were too low after the Reagan years. Reagan took just 3 years to double the national debt.

It's called "Voodoo Economics" ((C) G.H.W. Bush)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

He went back on his promise and lost the next election because of it (as he should have)

Kenedy lowered taxes, revenues went up
Regan lowered taxes , the treasurey set records.
Bush II lowered taxes, more money is coming into the coffers than before the taxes were lowered (and will set new records in the next two years)

Why is that so hard for you to believe??

Where's your proof? These data from the CBO show otherwise

Year   Revenues      Expenditures    On-budget surplus 

2000  2,025.2        1,788.8             86.6   

2001 1,991.2         1,863.8            -33.3    

2002 1,853.2         2,011.0            -317.5  

2003 1,782.3         2,157.6            -536.1

They show revenues declining after Bush's tax cuts. And, of course, in typical Republican fashion, expenditures and deficits rose.

And Bush (41) HAD to raise taxes because revenues were too low after the Reagan years. Reagan took just 3 years to double the national debt.

It's called "Voodoo Economics" ((C) G.H.W. Bush)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument on the past data. It does happen that way. The current cycle is showing something different however.

Your deficit agruments (while factualy correct) are misleading however. But I am used to that.

Ah yes, the Reagan years.
The taxes dollars coming in INCREASED dramaticly. The numbers are out there however, when Regan sent is buget to congress I beleieve the quote from mr Tip Oneal was something to the effect that his budget was "Dead on Arival"
The Dems pushed through a massive spending plan so Regan is only hung with that thought because of the selective reporting.

Bush 1, he tried to play nice with the Dems and got burned because of it.
Thier spending plan and his compromise got him where he is today.

As for the out of control spending? You and I agree on that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Hey! You two are hijacking my thread! That'll be 2 cases of beer from each of you. (I like the good, malty, German imports. Or a Belgian lambic.) Pay up now, you two.

[rushmc 18]

How about some dark Austrain beer from Coopers Brewery?" I will bring 3 cases if I can help you drink it!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Michele 1]

Quote

Belgian lambic

Belgium lambic. Yummy.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Amazon 7]

Quote

She did after all abandon him some years back, and though she says she 'speaks for him'

BZZZT Wrong answer regardless of what the Ultra Right is claiming....daily since She is not WIT EM SHE IS AGIN EM.

Geat treatment of a Gold Star Parent you good Americans out there

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp

Casey Austin Sheehan, a 24-year-old U.S. Army Specialist from California who served as a mechanic with the First Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, was killed in an ambush near Sadr City, Iraq, on 4 April 2004. Since Casey's death, his mother, Cindy Sheehan, has become an outspoken critic of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, most famously holding a 26-day vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, while the President was vacationing there in August 2005.

The piece quoted above, criticizing Ms. Sheehan's alleged lack of involvement in her son's upbringing after divorcing his father, is something fabricated out of whole cloth, evidently the product of someone's confusing a completely different family with the Sheehans. Cindy Sheehan and her husband, Patrick, were high school sweethearts who wed while both were in their early 20's and who have been married to each other for over 28 years. (Neither has ever been married to anyone else.) The couple had four children together, of whom Casey was the oldest. Both parents raised Casey together, first in the southern California community of Norwalk and later in the northern California town of Vacaville, where the Sheehans moved when Casey was 14.