:KillYou:

Re: Privatized social security

All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...

not just people on wall street. i have already started retirement money working in a school, so it is fine for people like me. but for anyone working on hourly wages from pay check to pay check will have to work literally till the day they die :cry:

Re: Privatized social security

[quote=Sinisterbeatz]All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...[/quote]

:roll:

Wall Street Buddies? I thought he was only looking out for his "Oil Industry buddies"

The 'Stock Market' is a building where people gauge the success or failure of hundreds of unrelated businesses. If a business is successful then people (like you and me w/ 401k's) want to be a part of it and buy a piece of their company(stock). The more money that you and I invest in companies, that have proven to be successful, the more they are able to expand, improve infrastructure, create more jobs, etc and thus become more profitable and we gain (not even counting the additional jobs added to the economy)..

Anyone who says the market will be 'watered down' shows that they have no knowledge of how the world of business works. It's a ridiculous 'flat world' type thing to say but lets be nice and just call it naive and uniformed. The more money that is put into mutual funds and stocks allows for expansion and creation of new money and more profit to the investor (you and me).Of course rich people invest in the market but so does middle America.

Social Security was never meant to be your pension, it was meant as a supplement to people at retirement. You probably heard Bush say that when it started 16 people contributed to each retired person so it worked. The world has change,average age in 1940 was 64 it is now 77, so the average individual is collecting for 13 more Years!!! Now its 2-3 people per retiree. Common sense tells you this can't be sustained.

People that hate Bush don't want him to do anything, if he's involved its EVIL. Politicians (Dems and Reps) have been saying for years that Soc Sec has to be fixed! Now their saying "it's not that bad"?. In a general discussion, just looking at the facts of increasing outlays and declining income into the Soc Sec system, any rational person would agree that the govt should do something to fix it. But since it is Bush introducing it they are blinded by their hatred of him personally.

FDR legacy is already established, nothing that Bush does will tarnish what one of the greatest presidents in history has done. To ignore a problem is irresponsable, we normally abuse politicians for not dealing with real problems. It is a political maxim that you can't touch Soc Security because it is the 'third rail' and would end anyone's political life. Here is Bush who could very easily ignore this and pass it on to the next President or generation but he decides to take on another contentious issue head on. Isn't that what a Leader is?

On second thought I should have just kept outta this but what the hell... work is slow today so I have some time to kill - flame away!

No doubt about it, common sense will tell you that something needs to be done or the system will collapse. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question is how to go about it.

I'm frankly on the fence on this. Intrinsicly, I would like to have control over my own money to the extent possible, and I think that I could outperform SS in the market investing it myself. My concern is that some people will either not take advantage of the opportunity to save for their retirement or will do so poorly, and then they become society's problem down the road. I guess it will depend to some extent upon how it is structured.

No rational person of our generation believes that SS will sustain us for our retirement -- like BSully said, for most people, it should be a component of a retirement plan, not the plan itself. I kinda like knowing that there is a portion of my retirement plan, albeit a very small one, that is pretty well insulated from normal economic forces and is "safe."

There was a recent study with some alarming results:

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html[/url]

the gist of it is that, at least in some circumstances, SS has outperformed the market, which is staggering to me.

[quote]For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds.

The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters. [/quote]

I'm going to wait until I see how, in fact, the plan will be structured before I pass judgment on it. Too many variables as it stands right now to even discuss it intelligently.

I can not wait. Why should I pay for a system that was started all ready behind? Plus with all the baby boomers rolling out here shortly, I ain't gonna pay for them chumps.

Go Bush. Save This Nation. :RockOn:

[quote=toasty]My concern is that some people will either not take advantage of the opportunity to save for their retirement or will do so poorly, and then they become society's problem down the road. I guess it will depend to some extent upon how it is structured. [/quote]

Good point, Toasty - that's an angle I never really considered (guess that speaks to my compassion for my neighbors...). That is something that will have to be addressed as the process continues - but it is something I hope that the creators of this plan have taken into account. Ignoring that possibility could lead to a similar situation that we have with welfare abuse - the collection of the few milking the work of the many.

Hopefully a meaningful dialogue can start to take shape between the two sides, but considering the words and actions of some dem's as of late, that looks to be a long shot.

This is one of the few things I support Bush on (at least the concept). Though, as toasty said, I'm waiting to see how it will be done.

This totally fucks over the poor who need that Social Security money as a main form of income. There has to be a better way to save it.

you should only get what you put in. that way we might have a chance of actually seeing it.

distributions beyond what you give into it (adjusted with a COLA of course), should be disallowed along with being able to recieve welfare beyond one month. 2 things that need to go. im already sick of giving my money away knowing i'll never see a dime. 2018 isnt far off, and if you use the neutral assessment of it 2020 is only 2 years later. :?

one more thing. dont ignore the fact that you are taxed on SS payments to a degree and if you personally invested in the same bonds SS does, you wouldnt be. also, the DJIA takes the most valueable stocks, not those with the growth potential, for instance google. opened at 85 now floating over 200. no real way to solve it for our generation, so i am all for it being privatized so i might have a degree of control over my future and know what im getting.

I saw a poll on CNN last night, do you think W's plan will work?

91% - no 6% - yes 3% - what plan?

I think this money will get flushed with a market "correction" and once again the middle class gets screwed.

"Go Bush. Save This Nation." :lol:

any poll taken on cnn or fox can't really be taken seriously. They both have their agenda and the people who watch them and would vote in their polls are a product of or already in support of that agenda.

...not that I support the plan, but 91% is quite a bit preposterous.

People you are making one huge oversight. People are not going to take SS money and throw it into high risk undiversified portfolios....and if they do they are fucking idiots. Plus I need to remind everybody that when the market "corrects" rich investor capitalists are the ones who lose their shirts not middle class citizens. Third their are tons of securities other than stocks. Like government or private bonds, or CD's.

I have mixed feelings about this too. I know that privatization is the right thing to do......but it will probably never benefit me. Even with privatization is still think that SS will go defunct and they will still jack our taxes. Plus I'm afraid that privatized SS will cause a bunch of retarded non-financial savvy imbiciles will start crying for legislation everytime their private account makes even the most minor dip. Which will probably cause me to go postal.... :lol:

[quote=mylexicon]People are not going to take SS money and throw it into high risk undiversified portfolios....and if they do they are fucking idiots. [/quote]

I think you may be giving the masses too much credit. There are some REALLY unsophisticated people in some parts of this country. Not all, of course, but not an insignificant number, either.

Re: Privatized social security

[quote=BSully828][quote=Sinisterbeatz]All he wants to do is flood his wall st. buddies with shit loads of cash, and when mutual funds and stocks become over bought stock prices are going to plummet because the market will become watered down...Just another attempt to destroy F.D.R's legacy...[/quote]

:roll:

Wall Street Buddies? I thought he was only looking out for his "Oil Industry buddies"

The 'Stock Market' is a building where people gauge the success or failure of hundreds of unrelated businesses. If a business is successful then people (like you and me w/ 401k's) want to be a part of it and buy a piece of their company(stock). The more money that you and I invest in companies, that have proven to be successful, the more they are able to expand, improve infrastructure, create more jobs, etc and thus become more profitable and we gain (not even counting the additional jobs added to the economy)..

Anyone who says the market will be 'watered down' shows that they have no knowledge of how the world of business works. It's a ridiculous 'flat world' type thing to say but lets be nice and just call it naive and uniformed. The more money that is put into mutual funds and stocks allows for expansion and creation of new money and more profit to the investor (you and me).Of course rich people invest in the market but so does middle America.

Social Security was never meant to be your pension, it was meant as a supplement to people at retirement. You probably heard Bush say that when it started 16 people contributed to each retired person so it worked. The world has change,average age in 1940 was 64 it is now 77, so the average individual is collecting for 13 more Years!!! Now its 2-3 people per retiree. Common sense tells you this can't be sustained.

People that hate Bush don't want him to do anything, if he's involved its EVIL. Politicians (Dems and Reps) have been saying for years that Soc Sec has to be fixed! Now their saying "it's not that bad"?. In a general discussion, just looking at the facts of increasing outlays and declining income into the Soc Sec system, any rational person would agree that the govt should do something to fix it. But since it is Bush introducing it they are blinded by their hatred of him personally.

FDR legacy is already established, nothing that Bush does will tarnish what one of the greatest presidents in history has done. To ignore a problem is irresponsable, we normally abuse politicians for not dealing with real problems. It is a political maxim that you can't touch Soc Security because it is the 'third rail' and would end anyone's political life. Here is Bush who could very easily ignore this and pass it on to the next President or generation but he decides to take on another contentious issue head on. Isn't that what a Leader is?

On second thought I should have just kept outta this but what the hell... work is slow today so I have some time to kill - flame away![/quote]

1. Big Buisness is Big Buisness

2. Personal accounts dont solve the solvencey (sp?) problem

3. I dont have a complete understanding of how the market works...My bad

4. The Social Security tax is capped at 90k ( meaning anything you make over 90k is not taxed) roughly one of my parents makes 90k why should they pay as much social security as bill gates...now your going to say well gates can only draw as much as you parents...this is true benefits structures should be re-worked

5. Not everything Bush does is evil, only naive people think that...I just disagree with his policies....

if anything, those with a basic understanding of the financial markets, regulation, and US accounting and reporting policies sohuld realize a few things.

1. bush inherited the market dip. it started b4 he even won the presidency the first time.
2. it was primarily due to the clinton admin(not the man himself) and thier policies of allowing extremely overstated financial statements and loose stock/bond offerings regulations.(see enron)
3. thank whatever god you worship that it happened when it did b/c if the market had gotten any more over inflated, history tells us a even larger panic could have ensued and lead to a much larger recession.
4. the policies instituted by the SEC/FASB/AICPA (particularly down the line with Sarbanes Oxley act's future adjustments) have made the market a lot more concrete by leaps and bounds. you now have more reliable research and ALOT more accountablilty to those who prepare and supply the materials for said financials.

and in regards to the social security policies. IMO, you'd be stupid to oppose this. at least this enables you to hold your future in your own hands. most people think that it means putting cash into risky stocks. dont. want proof? go out and buy the same governmental inssued bonds, and you actually make more money because you avoid the tax on SS down the line due to the fact that federal bonds are 100% tax free. the tax on SS(up to 66k in NY) can range from 7%-32% bepending on the income of your spouse. also, you are entitled to go out and buy a risky stock, for instance, google which opened at 85 and as of right now is 198.46. you doubled your investment in 2 months with that. its all about the options and locking yourself to YOUR money. if you dont get these locked in accounts, you dont stand a chance of seeing the money after 2020.

[quote=thesightless]

1. bush inherited the market dip. it started b4 he even won the presidency the first time.
2. it was primarily due to the clinton admin(not the man himself) and thier policies of allowing extremely overstated financial statements and loose stock/bond offerings regulations.(see enron) 3 [/quote]

nice someone finally got this right

btw. Jesus does not vote, he never did, and never will. hesh.

good call ASdf,

too many assholes assume that becasue an area called the bible belt voted for bush that it has to do with jesus. they didnt follow the pope, im sure he doesnt agree with bush at all.

FUCK, boston has the largest per capita population of roman catholics and other christian religious groups. it voted for kerry. also, the most contested state from the initial election was florida, largely populated by latin groups. which, are indeed a very religious group. and that state was near 50/50. the spanish and african american contingents in america are also very much christian in terms of religion. they tend to vote democrat.

and one more thing. joe leiberman is probably the most devout politician in america, so is teddy kennedy. they both attend thier respective services every week. but its ok, they hate bush. :roll:

get over yourselves people. seriously. its pathetic you cant just move on and live life. whoever is in charge is gonna piss off someone. use your heads and realize that MOST of what they do is for the benifit of the country. do you think that the "no child left behind" is a bad idea? i dont, it forces people to get an education. however, ill admit the banning of gay marriage is wrong. while i belive marriage is a sacrement of the jewish and christian faiths, the rights granted by it shouldnt be denied to everyone.

[quote=thesightless]good call ASdf,

too many assholes assume that becasue an area called the bible belt voted for bush that it has to do with jesus. they didnt follow the pope, im sure he doesnt agree with bush at all.

FUCK, boston has the largest per capita population of roman catholics and other christian religious groups. it voted for kerry. also, the most contested state from the initial election was florida, largely populated by latin groups. which, are indeed a very religious group. and that state was near 50/50. the spanish and african american contingents in america are also very much christian in terms of religion. they tend to vote democrat.

and one more thing. joe leiberman is probably the most devout politician in america, so is teddy kennedy. they both attend thier respective services every week. but its ok, they hate bush. :roll:

get over yourselves people. seriously. its pathetic you cant just move on and live life. whoever is in charge is gonna piss off someone. use your heads and realize that MOST of what they do is for the benifit of the country. do you think that the "no child left behind" is a bad idea? i dont, it forces people to get an education. however, ill admit the banning of gay marriage is wrong. while i belive marriage is a sacrement of the jewish and christian faiths, the rights granted by it shouldnt be denied to everyone.[/quote]

First of all, dont call me pathetic douche...

Secondly, I use this signature as joke. The republican party has hi-jacked religion and christainity and if you dont think so you should really stop hitting the pipe....:roll:...My sig is a shot at people like Fawell, Robertson, and Dobson that use Jesus's name to push intolerence and their conservative agenda... Yes most people in the south voted for Bush because of his close personal realationship with jesus...because every good christain knows tha jesus values such things as: Big Buisness, War, and Intolerence...

And on No Child Left Behind...

It was underfunded you stupid cocksucker...

Prepared by: Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives INTRODUCTION

In an effort to ensure that public schools educate all children, Congress passed in 2001 and President Bush signed into law in 2002 the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The goal of the law is simple: to eliminate the academic achievement gap among different groups of students so that all children have the opportunity to succeed in school. Despite the bi-partisan consensus and goodwill that was achieved through this historic legislation, one of the two fundamental promises made to America?s families was broken immediately after the bill was signed into law. Since 2002, the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have refused to fund the law at the levels they originally agreed to, hampering the ability of teachers and schools to fully realize the goals established in this law.

NCLB promised two things: tough reforms to hold schools accountable for the education of their students, and adequate resources to help them uphold the higher standards they were expected to meet. The reforms are being put in place. All of the money that was promised, however, is not.

The success America?s public education system is closely linked to our commitment to ensure that all children have access to resources that promote academic achievement. Essential academic resources include quality early childhood education, effective after school programs, adequate services for students participating in special education, appropriate English-language instruction for speakers of other languages, and highly qualified teachers.

While NCLB holds great promise, the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have consistently failed to allocate authorized resources. To date, nearly $27 billion has been withheld from America?s public education system. This means that major education programs, such as Title I for disadvantaged students and special education, continue to be significantly under-funded. The President and Congress have turned their backs on our schools, leaving them without the resources they desperately need to ensure the highest quality education for every child in every school.

Democrats in Congress are fighting for full funding and fair implementation of NCLB:

Full funding for NCLB. Democrats introduced H.R. 4473, to provide full funding for NCLB. Republicans have blocked the bill.

Extra funding for Title I schools. Over half of Title I schools ? schools that serve the most disadvantaged students ? will lose funding next year. It?s not fair to ask these schools to do more while giving them less. Democrats introduced H.R. 4769 to ensure sure no Title I school will lose money next year. The Republican leadership refuses to bring it up.

Fair implementation of NCLB. Some schools were recorded as not meeting one of the key measurements under NCLB, known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), that shouldn?t have because they had to calculate it before the Department of Education provided information on how to count certain children. It?s not fair to punish schools just because the Administration was slow in providing information. Democrats introduced H.R. 4605, to allow schools to recalculate AYP using the new, fairer criteria. Republicans oppose our bill. Alabama did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $90 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Alaska did not get $37 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Arizona did not get $182 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $104 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Arkansas did not get $84 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $52 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.

California did not get $1.3 billion in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $898 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $103 million for critical after-school programs, and $47 million to raise teacher quality.

Colorado did not get $96 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $54 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.

Connecticut did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $47 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.

District of Columbia did not get $44 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $28 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Delaware did not get $32 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Florida did not get $500 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $313 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $35 million for critical after-school programs, and $17 million to raise teacher quality.

Georgia did not get $283 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $180 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $22 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.

Hawaii did not get $47 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Idaho did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Illinois did not get $409 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $265 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $31 million for critical after-school programs, and $13 million to raise teacher quality.

Indiana did not get $131 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $80 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

Iowa did not get $51 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $29 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Kansas did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $39 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $5 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.

Kentucky did not get $123 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

Louisiana did not get $200 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $16 million for critical after-school programs, and $8 million to raise teacher quality.

Maine did not get $24 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Maryland did not get $161 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $83 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

Massachusetts did not get $171 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $110 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Michigan did not get $299 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $197 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.

Minnesota did not get $91 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $49 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.

Mississippi did not get $116 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $75 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

Missouri did not get $140 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $87 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Montana did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Nebraska did not get $43 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Nevada did not get $61 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $33 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

New Hampshire did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

New Jersey did not get $209 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $122 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $15 million for critical after-school programs, and $7 million to raise teacher quality.

New Mexico did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $57 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.

New York did not get $966 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $664 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $73 million for critical after-school programs, and $24 million to raise teacher quality.

North Carolina did not get $230 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $17 million for critical after-school programs, and $9 million to raise teacher quality.

North Dakota did not get $17 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Ohio did not get $310 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $196 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality.

Oklahoma did not get $129 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $64 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.

Oregon did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $62 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.

Pennsylvania did not get $337 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $217 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $25 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality..

Rhode Island did not get $23 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $23 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

South Carolina did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

South Dakota did not get $34 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Tennessee did not get $160 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $97 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Texas did not get $843 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $548 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $66 million for critical after-school programs, and $30 million to raise teacher quality.

Utah did not get $53 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Vermont did not get $27 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $16 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Virginia did not get $195 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $88 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

Washington did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $79 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.

West Virginia did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $46 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

Wisconsin did not get $128 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $78 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.

Wyoming did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.

YO, i wasnt taking a shot at you, so fuck you. i was saying that b/c so many people use the fact that bush is a worshipping christian and a lot of the red states have majority of chrisitian voters as an excuse for hating middle america. there are plenty of democratic reps that are just as devout. and anoyne with an idea of fairness in thier mind knows that gerry fallwell is a complete moron. he uses his influence over the less educated people as a weapon to get his beliefs into gov't. do you think that the jewish population has people who went out of thier way to vote democrat b/c of leiberman 2 elections ago? sure there were. did a lot of the country vote for JFK b/c he was the first catholic president, yes... its just that you dont like bush you get to trash a group of people to your liking. what about someone like me who is a catholic from NY, pretty centered, voted kerry this past time? am i now a war monger b/c i used to go to mass when i was young and will be married in a church?

and i completely agree with your statements on the schooling bill. its WAY underfunded. try teaching in harlem for 30k a year when your students are threatening your life. they need to fund it ALOT more.

its just too bad you group up all christian people with bush. do the catholics of ireland and england and italy vote for bush? do you think all muslims are terrorists as well? or all jewish people are to blame for the middle east crisis? dont generalize a religion with a guy who came in with an agenda to go after a dictator who killed thousands. yeah he was wrong, but no need to assume that Jesus/yahweh,budda,mohammed had anything to do with it.

and one more thing, rather than hate every person who values thier religion, why dont you work harder to push your gov't to do the right thing? go and vote. vote your way, if you lose, at least you tried. if you win. good for you. but if you lose no need to go trashing the ppl who won. :?

[quote=thesightless]too many assholes assume that becasue an area called the bible belt voted for bush that it has to do with jesus. they didnt follow the pope, im sure he doesnt agree with bush at all.

FUCK, boston has the largest per capita population of roman catholics and other christian religious groups. it voted for kerry. also, the most contested state from the initial election was florida, largely populated by latin groups. which, are indeed a very religious group. and that state was near 50/50. the spanish and african american contingents in america are also very much christian in terms of religion. they tend to vote democrat.

and one more thing. joe leiberman is probably the most devout politician in america, so is teddy kennedy. they both attend thier respective services every week. but its ok, they hate bush. :roll: [/quote]

As a resident of a bible belt state, I have to chime in here. There is a difference between being religious and being [b]religious[/b] the way people are in the bible belt. We're not talking about going to church regularly -- we're talking about billboards on the interstate that read "JESUS" and "PORN KILLS FAMILIES" in 20 foot letters, and a brand of zealotry that transcends the norm by a wide margin.

Your garden-variety citizen that maintains religious beliefs cannot hold a candle to rural Missouri and Arkansas. They're not even on the same playing field.

but again, is it OK to hate them b/c they are truly religoius??

if it is, then should we hate jews who follow kosher?

muslims who do daily prayers?

:?

its a fucked up world that needs a lot more acceptance rather than infighting between people. sooner or later we might realize that we are stuck here together. :|

[quote=toasty]I'm going to wait until I see how, in fact, the plan will be structured before I pass judgment on it. [/quote]

I still believe this. With that said, Bush's most recent explanation isn't filling me with hope. Actually, it isn't filling me with anything but confusion :D :

[quote]"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate [sic], 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.

"Okay, better? I'll keep working on it."[/quote]

:shock:

Classic W... :CrackUp:

[quote=thesightless]but again, is it OK to hate them b/c they are truly religoius??

if it is, then should we hate jews who follow kosher?

muslims who do daily prayers? [/quote]

I never said anything about hating anyone. I'm just saying that bible belt religious folks are a different breed of voter than religious people in general -- they'll pretty much always vote republican because of the perception that republicans embody "traditional family values," putting these values above all other issues.

St. Louis, my hometown, is extremely catholic -- it is also heavily democratic in composition -- so I don't see a correlation between being religious in a general sense and party affiliation. When you look at certain highly fundamentalist religious factions like you see in rural Missouri, however, it would be shortsighted to ignore the obvious connection between their fervent reliance upon strict fundamentalism and the religious right, who always vote repulbican.

i think we are saying the same thing, but coming from the opposite sides. there should be no correlation between christians and jesus and the republican party. JFK was a catholic and a democrat does that mean in 1960 and 61 jesus voted democrat>

[quote=thesightless]i think we are saying the same thing, but coming from the opposite sides. there should be no correlation between christians and jesus and the republican party. JFK was a catholic and a democrat does that mean in 1960 and 61 jesus voted democrat>[/quote]

You dont get the joke...

Re: Privatized social security

It's not religious vs. non-religious.

It's evangelical christian vs. non-evangelical christian.

There was a great Frontline a while back that had a lot of insiders on the Bush team from the Gore/Bush election.

At that time, Karl Rove and team realized Bush could very nearly win the electoral college with ONLY the evangelical vote. They needed to motivate those voters and get them out, but if they did, that would nearly clinch the election.

That's essentially why he's courted them so strongly. Not to mention the fact he feels that way anyway. But that's why he has basically not had to compromise.

And it's also why Democrats lose. There are plenty of Evangelicals, I bet, who have a problem with Iraq, etc. But they also have a problem with gay marriage, abortion, and other things. They'll give Bush a flyer on Iraq and his spending because of those other issues they feel strongly about.

Democrats, on the other hand, completely ignore these people. And that's why they lose. I think Democrats have to turn environment, social programs, and education into issues of social justice.

The only way to swing Evangelicals is to convince them that those issues are far more morally important than gay rights, etc. I think they are, and careful analysis by many people would show that ruining the environment for profit hurts a lot more people than two guys having sex. There's an argument to be made there, if only the Dems had the balls to do it.

it's about Morals ... that is what won the Bush Admin into another 4 years. Look at the exit polls ... they never lie.

[quote=asdf_admin]Look at the exit polls ... they never lie.[/quote]

Uh, are these the same exit polls that called a win for Kerry?

:wink:

[quote=Sinisterbeatz][quote=thesightless]i think we are saying the same thing, but coming from the opposite sides. there should be no correlation between christians and jesus and the republican party. JFK was a catholic and a democrat does that mean in 1960 and 61 jesus voted democrat>[/quote]

You dont get the joke...[/quote]

it was just alittle joke :D

no. exit polls are after the election. that is what is fuct about America ... fucking usage.

[quote=thesightless]but again, is it OK to hate them b/c they are truly religoius??

if it is, then should we hate jews who follow kosher?

muslims who do daily prayers?

:?

its a fucked up world that needs a lot more acceptance rather than infighting between people. sooner or later we might realize that we are stuck here together. :|[/quote]

i agree. i may disagree for the most part with what most religious people think but i still accept them because without doing that you will have nothing in the long run.,

agree to disagree.

Re: Privatized social security

Interesting take on the SS issue below, check it out if you've got a moment:

[quote][b]Bush Marketing Beats His Plan[/b] By Allan Sloan

You've got to give President Bush an A-plus for the way he marketed the Social Security proposals in his State of the Union address last week. "If you've got children in their twenties, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter," he said -- a sentiment with which even a skeptic like me, who has twenty- and thirty-something kids, totally agrees. You can't argue with Bush's stated goals of making Social Security financially sound to allow Americans a secure retirement. But the centerpiece of his proposals -- allowing workers the option to divert up to 4 percent of payroll taxes into private accounts -- doesn't do anything to fix Social Security's financial woes. Instead, it's a fiendishly clever device that serves the political goal of remaking the nation's most popular social program so that it's "a better deal" for younger workers. There was a twinkle in Bush's eye when he said that, a clever allusion to the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, father of Social Security. You could almost hear the Democrats gnashing their teeth. In their current incarnation, you'd almost certainly want to sign up for these accounts if you were younger than 55. Yes, you'd have to accept a smaller guaranteed benefit. But you'd come out ahead if your account produced an annual return -- cash income and price gains -- of more than 3 percent above inflation. That's not a slam-dunk, but it ought to be attainable because you would have a choice among a handful of high-grade, very-low-cost, very diversified mutual funds. But there's a catch. You would own the account, sort of, but you wouldn't control it. And you'd have to fork over the aforementioned 3 percent return -- by taking a smaller benefit -- when you cash in your account. Bush, brilliantly, is marketing these accounts as empowering people who'd have no other assets. But I don't think things would work out well for these folks. There would be strict limitations on the accounts -- you couldn't take money out of them before you retire or even borrow against them. And the odds of low-income people being able to leave a significant account to their heirs -- one of Bush's major selling points -- strike me as remote. Here's why. When it's retirement time, low-income people would probably have to convert most or all of their private accounts into annuities to have enough money to live on or to meet requirements that their guaranteed benefits plus annuity income would exceed certain levels. If you had to convert your entire account into an annuity, there would be nothing left for your heirs when you died. Higher-paid people, by definition, would have bigger private Social Security accounts and less need for annuity income than lower-income people would. This gives them a far greater chance of having something left to hand down to their heirs and gives lower-paid people less chance. Not to be snotty, but we higher-income types hardly need additional breaks. We've already got plenty. Staying power matters big-time, too -- and higher-income people have more of it than lower-income people do. Although stocks tend to rise over the long term, you'd have to cash in some or all of your retirement account to buy an annuity when you retire. That puts you at the mercy of events. Consider the following, produced at my request by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Say you retired in March 2000, with a private account that held $100,000 of stock in a Standard & Poor's 500-stock index fund. (Index funds match the performance of a benchmark; they don't try to beat the market.) Your inflation-adjusted annuity would have been $7,558 a year -- about $630 a month -- by the center's calculation. But if you had had the same number of shares in your account and instead retired in October 2002, your account would have had less than $60,000 in it. Your annuity: $3,352 a year, or $279 a month. The combination of lower values and lower interest rates is a double whammy. You see the problem? You can get much less -- or much more -- than someone who has saved at the same rate as you but retired a little earlier or later. If you've got financial staying power, you could wait for better days or buy the smallest annuity the government will permit. If you don't have staying power, you have to take what the market gives you. Higher-paid people thus have a big advantage. The guaranteed Social Security benefit, by contrast, is tilted toward lower-income people, with a benefit of about 56 percent of Social Security-covered wages for a minimum-wage earner, 30 percent for folks like me who have reached the Social Security maximum every year. You're swapping benefits skewed toward lower-income people for investment opportunities skewed toward higher-income people. I'm in favor of private accounts constructed along the lines that Bush suggested. But the accounts ought to be in addition to the basic benefit, not a replacement for about half of it. Democrats are crazy to oppose private accounts. They really do empower you. The current generation is used to investing and is understandably skeptical about government promises. This isn't the 1930s, when only a handful of people bought stocks and many of them came to regret it. It's the aughts, guys, get with it. FDR's been dead for 60 years. The world has changed. If the president really wants to fix Social Security rather than pick a political fight -- and the Democrats feel the same -- it wouldn't be difficult. They'd compromise by putting more money into the system by raising wage taxes a tad, taking less out by increasing the retirement age and trimming benefit formulas and setting up private accounts funded by wage earners, not by government borrowings. Put a few willing negotiators in a room and a deal's done in a month. I won't hold my breath, though. Bush has marketed the pants off the Democrats by setting the terms of debate. Do you want to pay higher taxes or lower taxes? Clearly, lower. Do you want to pay estate tax or not? Do you want private accounts, or don't you? He has done a fabulous job of showing the goodies -- and of hiding the costs. People, naturally, have opted for the goodies. The Bushies are in full sales mode, including sticking recordings on Social Security's phone lines preaching that the system has to change. In the name of empowering my kids, he's asking them to pay full freight for my retirement and for trillions in new borrowings, while forking over the same wage taxes for lower benefits. If he can sell this one, the Marketing Hall of Fame should start planning his induction ceremony. [i]Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor.[/i] [/quote]

Re: Privatized social security

I have a couple of comments....The first one is kind of a question. BSully writes:

[quote] The 'Stock Market' is a building where people gauge the success or failure of hundreds of unrelated businesses. If a business is successful then people (like you and me w/ 401k's) want to be a part of it and buy a piece of their company(stock). The more money that you and I invest in companies, that have proven to be successful, the more they are able to expand, improve infrastructure, create more jobs, etc and thus become more profitable and we gain (not even counting the additional jobs added to the economy)..

[/quote]

I'm not an expert on the stock market by any means, but I was under the impression that the only time that business receives money from stock trade is when the IPO is offered. This offering is called a "cash infusion" providing money for the things that you discuss in your post. Aside from the board members and employees holding stock, the trading of stock after the IPO has no financial benefits for the company. Its stock price is just an indication of whether people are willing to gamble on their perservernce

Second, why the hell do Americans view taxes as the ultimate evil?
Instead of complaining about taxes, how about comlaining about government accountability? How about demanding visibility into the system? Isn't this suppose to be a government for the people, by the people?

when a company issues stock through an IPO, it basically sells a large chunk of its stock, never all of it. and they do this by offering it to brokerage houses firstly. those brokerage houses sell it on the open market. to you, to me, to anyone. they retain most of the stock in thier own common stk reserve and sell it as needed. they also buy back stock. that is how a company can make money selling stock after the IPO

Re: Privatized social security

So, who, what or where is this reserved common stock held? At this point, it the company is only promising to divest itself of ownership in exchange for cash from shareholders, right? And then when company buys back stock, it consolidates ownership and decision making power....

Or, Am I not understanding the process correctly?

you hit it on the head.

there is usually a common stock reserve account that the company holds onto.

and BTW only voting shares have a say in company policy. non- voting shares usually only have the right to board elections.

When a company buys back stock, that stock no longer exists, but they reserve the right to sell it again.

So, say you own 1% of a company. If that company buys back 10% of the oustanding shares, you now own 1.11% of the company. But, they are always allowed to sell those shares again if they wish, bringing you back down to 1%.

Weird, I know, but true.

Re: Privatized social security

I guess... my original point was in reference to a post by another member.
In an earlier post, someone was trying to justify privatization by claiming that when more people invest in stock the publically traded companies receive extra revenue to invest in their business and the economy expands.

I think we have established from the last few posts that companies only obtain "cash infusions" when they offer IPOs or after they sell stock that they previously held in reserve. Stock prices are effected BY the economy, not the other way around. The only economic expansion that will result from privatization of Social Security is the very small sector of investment firms and their employees......