quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
You know, one of the interesting things, by the way, again, on personal accounts -- admittedly, new concept; hard for some to understand; and it's just going to take a while for people to hear the debate and get used to the cconcept. The principles are easy to understand: your money, you own it, you can pass it on to whoever you want, you get a better rate of return. But it's been done before. In other words, this isn't the first time the thought of a
thrift savings plan has been advanced. As a matter of fact, federal employees can now take some of their own money and put it into five different conservative portfolios of stocks and bonds as a part of their retirement package. It's an easy statement to say, but something I believe is, if it's good enough for federal employees, it ought to be good enough for younger workers. (Applause.)
Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?

MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.

MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the
things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.

THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?

MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.

THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?

MS. MORNIN: That's right.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.

MS. MORNIN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: That's great.
Jerry Rempe is with us. Jerry, tell them what you gave me.

MR. REMPE: I came today because I'm married and have three children --
THE PRESIDENT: No, tell them what you gave me as -- to make me look good at the household.

MR. REMPE: I work for Omaha Steaks, so we presented the President with Omaha steaks today. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: They know something about beef in this state, isn't that right?

MR. REMPE: We know a little bit here.

THE PRESIDENT: About beef. That's good thing about Johanns. He knows something about beef, too. And he'll -- (Laughter.) He'll make sure the
cattlemen, as well as the -- as well as the grain growers and soybean growers all across the country are well represented in the Ag Department.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt you, but I was just trying to get you kind of a subtle plug. (Laughter.)

---

[ February 09, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I feel the same way... He is just so out of touch.
But I'm burning out from too much indignation.
It just wears me out that a guy like that is our president!
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Clinton was folksy too. Is that the trouble, the folksy-ness?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, the folksy bit I can cope with. If you don't see the trouble in the quote I provided, I'm not sure I can adequately articulate it for you.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
what exactly is your problem with this, Tom?

(edit: you said the above as I was posting)

[ February 09, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Are you speaking of the 3 jobs? Are you sure they're full time?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*sigh* Okay, clearly I'm going to need to try to articulate this. Honestly, I'm intrigued; that the Bush supporters on the board don't see the same disturbing elements in this snippet that I do suggests quite strongly to me that there really is a major personality component to political affiliation.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
psssttt, Dag! I think he's lumping us together again! I'm so flattered!

FG
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Me, too, Farmgirl. We await articulation in disjointed fashion.

[ February 09, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
The thing I see in this snippett that bugs me is something that I think is common to all politicians (not just Bush) - glossing over or talking past people's concerns to focus instead on inane babble that means absolutely nothing. I mean, he doesn't really want to answer Ms. Mornin's concerns but instead focuses on "gee aren't you great" and age, and "we don't want to hear what Jerry has to say other than that he gave me steaks".

[ February 09, 2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Is it the whole it’s your money thing that bothers you? You don’t think it’s really hers?
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 

quote:

---

the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society.

---

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.

---

quote:

---

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.

---

quote:

---

Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.

---

for so many reasons...

Tom, were any of these some of the disturbing elements?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, Danzig.
I'll to try lay it out.

The hand-picked example of Mary Mornin, a middle-aged woman supporting an adult child, was used in the following way: Mary, like many middle-aged people, wants to be reassured that Bush's SS plan won't change the benefits on which she's counting. She also wants to hear that her adult children will be able to count on Social Security in their own future (particularly, I'd imagine, the one she's already supporting.) She's a perfect example of a point Bush wants to make, which is why they let her in the room.

Here's how he goes about making that point. He notes that she's only a year younger than he is, and yet he feels fine, and she feels fine, and because people are living longer, elderly baby boomers "shouldn't think about giving up their responsibilities" just yet. But he graciously acknowledges that, yeah, there's a "certain comfort" in knowing that the safety net the government's promised you all your life, which consists of your own money, is going to actually be there in five years when you selfishly retire. So Mary -- and by extension the old people who vote a Social Security ticket -- can rest assured that it will. "Nothing changes."

We might expect that he would then bring the conversation around to her three adult children, and explain how despite "nothing changes" his plan will keep their savings intact. We would be wrong.

In the process of talking to Mary Mornin, Bush discovers that she's working three jobs to help support her disabled son. His response to that? "Uniquely American, isn't it?" and "Get much sleep?" She confirms that, no, she does not.

But he hopes, in a spectacularly awkward segue, that knowing her benefits will be there in five years under his plan will help her sleep better.

And with a "that's great," Bush now turns to Jerry Rempe, another hand-picked guest. Jerry wants to get right to the issue, and leaps into his prepared remarks. Bush, however, chooses to interrupt the guy to make a truly unctuous connection between a gift of Omaha steaks and his appointment of a cattleman to the head of the Agriculture Department.

[ February 09, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

a middle-aged woman supporting an adult child,

---

quote:

---

The thing I see in this snippett that bugs me is something that I think is common to all politicians (not just Bush) - glossing over or talking past people's concerns to focus instead on inane babble that means absolutely nothing

---

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
You know, one of the interesting things, by the way, again, on personal accounts -- admittedly, new concept; hard for some to understand; and it's just going to take a while for people to hear the debate and get used to the cconcept. The principles are easy to understand: your money, you own it, you can pass it on to whoever you want, you get a better rate of return. But it's been done before. In other words, this isn't the first time the thought of a
thrift savings plan has been advanced. As a matter of fact, federal employees can now take some of their own money and put it into five different conservative portfolios of stocks and bonds as a part of their retirement package. It's an easy statement to say, but something I believe is, if it's good enough for federal employees, it ought to be good enough for younger workers. (Applause.)

---

quote:

---

A
Washington Post Article (BugMeNot or registration req'd.) said:
What Bush did not detail is how contributions in the account would reduce workers' monthly Social Security checks. Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.

...

If investments earned less than 3 percent a year above inflation, a worker would do worse in total benefits than he would have done in the traditional system.

---

quote:

---

Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.

---

quote:

---

If investments earned less than 3 percent a year above inflation, a worker would do worse in total benefits than he would have done in the traditional system.

---

quote:

---

what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does,

---

quote:

---

I heard that for every dollar that gets taken out of Social Security, the person who opted for the different system gets a dollar less. Let's say instead of getting $10,000/year froim SS, I only get $9,000, BUT I take the other 1,000 and invest it.

---

Yes, except instead of a 1 for 1 trade, I think this meanst that they'll take ($1 + inflation + 3% interest).
 

---

Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
 
The thing that really bothers me about this is the jovial way he glosses over Ms. Mornin's three jobs and her lack of sleep. Ha, ha, aren't you a typical American. Nothing along the lines of why she should be able to have just one job id addition to caring for disabled son.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 

quote:

---

($1 + inflation + 3% interest)

---

quote:

---

The thing that really bothers me about this is the jovial way he glosses over Ms. Mornin's three jobs and her lack of sleep. Ha, ha, aren't you a typical American. Nothing along the lines of why she should be able to have just one job id addition to caring for disabled son. [Mad]

---

quote:

---

what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does, even when he doesn't really behave as a conservative.

---

quote:

---

I just puzzled over what was so obviously cringe worthy about it.

---

Even after reading Tom's explaination of what upset him? (I'm genuinely asking, because if the answer is yes, then more discussion is needed, obviously.)
 

---

Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
 
It made me cringe. Think about his "isn't America great" response when she mentioned three jobs, like she was so fortunate. Now, if she's a person who really enjoys working, and likes having three jobs, or if they are three jobs that altogether give her 40 hrs/week, his response would be appropriate. But the impression she gives is that she's working 3 jobs because she has to, and she's tired so she's probably working a lot of hours. Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but his humor comes off as callous.

Honestly, for me that is what makes Bush so cringe-inducing-- his responses are often so jarringly inappropriate.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
I imagine another cringe-worthy element was that Bush brought up the sleep topic to a woman working three jobs.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
I just don't understand why if Tom's cringeing is likely based solely on it being Bush who said it, but then conservatives are accused of defending it only because Bush said it.

In explaining how it becringed him, Tom gave a fair enough synopses of the segment.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
I cringed today when GWB introduced his friend, the Prime Minister of Poland.
"Oh, that's President?'
Ouch.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
People live longer. This woman is pushing 60 and has a disabled son. She works three jobs.

It seems to me that some people have this idyllic notion of work. Most of these people are people like the ones that post here often. They have desk jobs that don't require much physical exertion, beyond dragging your butt out of bed and sitting at a desk. I'd be willing to bet that at the very minimum, this woman works at least on job which requires she stand on a concrete floor for hours on end. I'd be surprised if at least one of them didn't require her to be cleaning toilets on her knees.

While the idea of working past 65 or 67 is fine for a ton of jobs, the people really getting screwed by this whole notion of "we're living longer" are the poor. A, they have limited, if any, access to health-care. B, they have physically demanding jobs. C, by the time they reach 65 or 67, their bodies, especially their ankles and knees, are pretty worn out.

Bush thinks that working three jobs is uniquely American? I wonder why? Is it because most first world countries pay their workers enough that they can live on one job, and since we don't, most Americans have to have three jobs to survive? I think Bush thinks it's uniquely American because he's seen immigrants come to America and work their butts off just to survive, and create a future for their children. While that is a terrific thing, I don't think generations of Americans should have to work three jobs to get by.

And while Bush still "feels great" I'm sure there are many Americans who actually work for a living who don't. I can't imagine that my 40 year old husband will be able to keep his job for another 25 years, but it seems like Bush thinks he should do it for another 30 or 35 years. As it is, when he comes home at night and sits down, he has a lot of trouble walking when he stands back up. He works on a concrete floor all day. His ankle is shot.

I've seen old 50 year olds. Unless the government has some plan for transitioning these people into jobs that don't require so much physical stress, I don't see how they are going to be able to contribute. But under Bush, they will be "giving up their responsibilities." Shame on them.

Considering that the government hasn't figured out how to get people like me a job so we can contribute so society and "be responsible", I don't have much hope for the "hard" working poor.

Bush shows no understanding of how hard some poor, and even middle class, Americans work. Or how a physically demanding job that doesn't pay a lot of money is still a job that someone has to do and it is contributing to society.

He should suggest mandatory retirement age by occupation. If you work a desk job and you don't have Alzheimer's, sure, don't retire till your 75. If you work construction and your knees, ankles and back take a beating daily, you should have to retire at 60.

I just don't think Bush is in touch with "real" Americans. He's led too sheltered a life.

I wonder if he'd be comfortable with a Secret Service detail that was all over 60. We certainly don't want those Secret Service agents to be giving up their responsibility.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does

---

gnixing -- I don't see any evidence, whatsoever, in this thread that implies that we support him regardless of what he does.

I'm offended by that over-generalization.

FG
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Kayla, have I mentioned lately how much I like you?


 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

IAWTP

---

Whazzat mean?
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
I agree with that post?
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
I don't know either, Ela.

And I still think that if these quotes were attributed to Clinton, folks would not find fault with them. They'd say "A president would know what it's like to not get much sleep."
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I would like to see politicians adopt a workday program similar to what Sen. Bob Graham did every month when he was in office. He'd take a job and work it, all day, in the same conditions as the usual employees. In 408 workdays he was a civics teacher, several kinds of construction worker, a Hialeah Park stable boy, a fish cleaner, a phosphate miner, a busboy for several different restaurants, a chicken plucker, a film grip, a concrete cutter on a bridge job, a reporter, a garbage collector, an iron worker, a pea picker, a train conductor, a student loan processor, a park ranger, a hurricane relief worker, and many more. His last one was volunteer gift wrapper with the Girl Scouts for Christmas. While there was certainly an element of public relations to all of them, he didn't have to do them and he didn't have to do them so faithfully or consistently. He did, and I respect that.

I expect my representative to know enough about me to adequately represent my needs. My real needs, not the ones he tells me I have.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
But was he a nursing mother? Owie.

P.S. Sorry, I think that is definitely a decent thing for him to have attempted.

[ February 09, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

And I still think that if these quotes were attributed to Clinton, folks would not find fault with them.

---

quote:

---

But was he a nursing mother?

---

quote:

---

I will never understand, until the day I die, why Bush fans use Clinton in situations like these as an example of someone who could do no wrong.

---

I don't get this either.

What the heck does Clinton have to do with the statements by Bush that Tom quoted? And it's not as if Clinton was never made fun of for anything he said or did.

Bringing Clinton into the discussion is really besides the point.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, in the context provided by Tom, Clinton can be relevant. He said, "I think it sums up nicely why it's very difficult for me to like [Bush]."

If Clinton said very similar things, and Tom liked Clinton, then it's a very good attack on Tom's basic premise, and support for MT's premise that the cringe is induced by party more than content.

I don't know if Tom liked Clinton, and I don't know if Tom ever heard Clinton say something like this, but the reasoning is sound based on Tom's initial framing of the issue.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
 
Clinton didn't say it. So you can't say whether or not Tom would've had a negative reaction if Clinton had said it.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I don't really care who said it. Even if it was a Democrat I'd still be offended by someone who has no idea what it's like to work even one lousy job, let alone 3 taking that sort of tone towards a person who does.
But, what do you expect from the kind of guy who cut funding for people with repetative stress injuries and is now trying to cut housing for the poor!
Three jobs, hardly getting enough sleep, and having to be a single mother... and it's just going to get worse for people!
Gods, this is the very thing that just makes me want to throw up my hands and give up!
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, in the context provided by Tom, Clinton can be relevant. He said, "I think it sums up nicely why it's very difficult for me to like [Bush]."

If Clinton said very similar things, and Tom liked Clinton, then it's a very good attack on Tom's basic premise, and support for MT's premise that the cringe is induced by party more than content.

I don't know if Tom liked Clinton, and I don't know if Tom ever heard Clinton say something like this, but the reasoning is sound based on Tom's initial framing of the issue.

---

quote:

---

But in our current system, we are not setting the money aside for infaltion or interest to affect it. Doesn't the money get spent on either SS or other government programs immediately?
It wouldn't be $1 + inflation + 3% interest anyway, it would be inflation + 3% interest. The dollar is already being accounted for.

---

quote:

---

Well, specifically, I find the Clinton references a bit baffling because I was never a huge Clinton fan.

---

And I specifically left this possibility open. I still contend that when someone points to a particular act claiming this "sums up" your overall negative view of a person, comparisons of similar acts by people that someone has a positive reaction to is a valid refutation technique.

To be successful, of course, it requires backup of the positive view and parallel acts.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I agree that politicians are too good at ignoring questions in order to make a speech. Its insulting to the questioner and to the listeners.

This complaint goes for Democrats, Republicans, and any one else out there playing political spin games.

I agree that the line, "You work 3 jobs? How uniquely American" is wrong. It is not a good thing that a 60 year old woman has to work 3 jobs, and it does not happen only in America. It shows a lack of sympathy for people who work in America.

I think Tom was wrong is saying that all Bush supporters support him no matter what. That was a dangerous generalization and an insult.

There is a sub-set of Republicans who are Bush-Conservatives (Jay is a good example I believe, and no--this is not meant as an insult to Jay). They seem to define right and wrong as being for or against what the President says. I personally find such unquestioning obeidiance dangerous.

Finally, my thoughts on SS reform.

I heard a spokesman for the Republican party talk about why there is a crisis. While on paper Social Security will last for 75 years, the truth is that Congress has been raiding the fund to pay for other things. That is why its going to go broke soon. If we don't fix it, they'll have to raise taxes to cover not social security, but other regular government spending.

Since they have not been responsible enough to live within their budget, they are forcing retire's to live within a stricter budget in the future (they plan on paying for the reforms by cutting the growth of future benefits. When I retire 25 years from now, I may get the same benefits as someone retiring today. That would be fine, accept inflation, especially in the medical industry will make it worth much less. How much was a gallon of gas in 1980? How much was a gallon of milk, or rent, or heart medicine?)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I think Tom was wrong is saying that all Bush supporters support him no matter what."

That would have been wrong, if I had said anything of the kind.

"I heard a spokesman for the Republican party talk about why there is a crisis. While on paper Social Security will last for 75 years, the truth is that Congress has been raiding the fund to pay for other things."

This is not news. In fact, this was for years an issue for Congressional Democrats; it was one of the planks of Al Gore's campaign. The problem is that Bush's proposal doesn't actually do anything to address the core issue itself: that the system is out of money. Bush's plan STILL requires us to raid the federal budget (and blossom the deficit) to pay for retiree benefits; his "fix" doesn't start "fixing" things until thirty years too late, and even then only counts as a "fix" for certain values of that word.
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

I think Tom was wrong is saying that all Bush supporters support him no matter what. That was a dangerous generalization and an insult.

---

quote:

---

what i don't understand here is why republicans flat out support bush regardless of what he does

---

i did not say ALL, and i do not believe it is a dangerous generalization. i'm sorry for those that may take offense at it (FG) but too many republicans flat out support Bush and do not hold him accountable.
i sometimes find myself listening to rush and hannity, or even michael reagan. they don't criticize bush when they should. particularly with the social security issue. bush hasn't laid out an effective or even decent plan yet, and still the vocal figureheads of the republican media are touting his plan as the most important thing to happen to social security. i don't get it.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
It's because the big biz benefits from private investment accounts. It floods the market with tons of new capital as a quarter of a billion people being putting money into the stock market, some maybe for the first time. Who benefits in the short term? Who pays for it in the long and short term? That money he swaps from other programs to pay for current recipients is "our money" too.

And his new budget is a sham. Even with asking for the 5% increase for defense spending doesn't include the money he will be asking for to continue the war in Iraq. Why the majority of Republicans support Bush is beyond me as well. And it isn't painting with a broad brush to say that...what serious critics has he had from his own party? McCain? And...McCain? He slaps down those that do raise questions (Powell, we hardly knew ye) or pushes to the fringes others. It also isn't painting with a broad brush because, hello, he actually had the majority of voters pick him this time and I would assume that that bunch was made up of Republicans who, after 4 shaky years, thought he did just fine and should get the chance to do it again. Unless it was a bunch of Angry Old Democrats who voted for him like Zell Miller!
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Well GW has his own “fell your pain” story.
http://www.ashleysstory.com/
Try not to cry as you hear her story.

I think what Bush was trying to say with the 3 jobs being uniquely American is that we will work hard to make our own way here. We don’t let anything hold us back and our proud to do whatever it takes to achieve our dreams.

The great thing about private accounts is that it will help out the economy. Chili did this in the early 80’s and quickly became one of the fastest growing South American countries. Plus wouldn’t it be great for Government to have less money to waste!

Tell ya what. When we do the “one thing you like about Bush” thread and everyone else is listing something good I promise to list one bad thing. It’ll be the Bizaro thread!
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

Plus wouldn’t it be great for Government to have less money to waste!

---

quote:

---

Plus wouldn’t it be great for Government to have less money to waste

---

quote:

---

I think what Bush was trying to say with the 3 jobs being uniquely American is that we will work hard to make our own way here. We don’t let anything hold us back and our proud to do whatever it takes to achieve our dreams.

---

quote:

---

The great thing about private accounts is that it will help out the economy.

---

quote:

---

but will need to continue to spend more money

---

quote:

---

What this country NEEDS is to figure out the difference between needs and wants.

---

quote:

---

And last year, they apparently started a program where you could get your refund in gift cards to Rent-A-Center. That's just awful.

---

My god! This is really happening!? Rent-A-Center is blight on the neighborhoods I work in. I work with families that can't make ends meet monthly yet most have giant screen televisions courtesy of Rent-A-Centers. At $20 a week for the rest of your life, how bad can that be?? Yeesh...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm torn on how to handle Rent-A-Center. Laws preventing Rent-A-Center from making such contracts would be incredibly patronizing to the people who rent from them. But these deals are so predatory.

I think there ought to be a classification in bankruptcy proceedings of "stupidly risky debt" that gets no share of the recovery.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
There are a bazillion tax return resources out there that will do your returns for free online if you make under a certain amount of money.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yeah, it's really happening. It's marketed in urban areas.

There's a balance there. You can't just step in and make these people's decisions for them. Not only is that not practical, it's never going to result in them being able to make responsible decisions. But on the other hand, if you sit back and say "Yeah, it's their fault for being stupid.", you're stuck with a crappy situation (the thing being that it's a crappy situation that American businesses, politicians, and other power-bearing organizations profit by, even while it screws with the actual society).

They are the people who make those decisions. They may be heavily influenced, but they aren't forced into it. One the other hand, giving them a little bit of information and some counseling is often enough for them to make another, more responsible decision. So there you go.
 

---

Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
 
I just don't like the way Rent A center Advertises to people. If they flat out told you it would cost I wouldn't be upest. All you ever see is you can have a Big screen TV for just 13 dollars a week! The consumer can eventually own the merchandise if the payments are made on time over an extended period. But, the rental payments add up astronomically. For example, with $13 weekly rent-to-own payments over 78 weeks, a $250 television set would cost $1,014 before the consumer owned the set. This represents an annual interest rate (APR) of 265 percent.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
We used TurboTax free this year. And we should get our refund tomorrow.

I'm ashamed to say, not all of it is going towards actual "needs". *hangs head*

*is going to WenchCon*

On the bright side, our net tax, even with a huge chunk gone for self-employment on contract labor, was the government paying us $900 above what they took out.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
What is the history of usury laws? I think places like Rent-a-Center skirt the edge of that territory.

Basically, as long as they give full disclosure about how much these things will eventually cost them, you can't really legislate against those who believe that "a fool and his money are soon parted."

-------

There are some things that are absolutely outrageous. One is gym memberships. I talked to someone about joining one in my neighborhood (I live in the less affluent, mostly minority part of Dallas), and that clown seriously avowed that the only possible way to join the gym was to sign up for a 3-year membership and pay the entire three years up front. They generously offered to finance the gym membership. So, joining the gym meant incurring a $2300 debt and slowly "paying it off." I was so pissed at being patronized and lied to that I went through three sales people and gave my opinion to the manger. At least two of the people lied to me straight out that it was not possible to join any other way. It was obviously the MO of the place.

You add the incredible bank fees for bouncing even one check, the low rate of return on normal savings accounts, and high interest rates on loans, and it means it's expensive to be poor.

[ February 10, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
uhhhh...Storm

quote:

---

There are a bazillion tax return resources out there that will do your returns for free online if you make under a certain amount of money.

---

quote:

---

What this country NEEDS is to figure out the difference between needs and wants.

---

I can agree with you there. You were saying this in response to my quote and I wasn't talking about ALL government spending, I was talking about Social Security (in response to the poster who claimed that personal accounts means less money for the government to spend/waste...which ain't true at least in the next 30 or 40 years). And from what I have read, Bush is saying no changes for current recipients of SS and those at 55 or older, right? The fact that current people paying into SS are supporting those that are currently receiving the benefits means that when they start taking money out, those guaranteed benefit payments to current and near future recipients will need to come from some other pot of money. That was the money I was talking about that still needed to be spent.

As for "needs vs. wants" that is a whole other thread or three! The problem is that no matter who is elected, money will be spent in ever increasing amounts. Republicans run on "fiscal conservative" talk but honestly, has there been one in recent memory? None of the Bushes nor Reagan were exceedingly good at managing the Federal coffers. Instead of spending money on social programs they spend them on military. The problem is that they run publicly on a platform but in reality are supported by parties that want something in return...and that is usually money of some sort. So it is a matter of wanting to vote for someone who will spend the money in a way that you like. The bigger difference is that at least Democrats aren't afraid to ask the current generation to pay for current needs vs. cutting taxes and leaving that to the next President/generation to fix.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm ashamed to say, not all of it is going towards actual "needs". *hangs head*

---

quote:

---

You were saying this in response to my quote and I wasn't talking about ALL government spending, I was talking about Social Security

---

quote:

---

Understanding the difference between needs and wants does not mean you can't fulfill any of your wants.

---

I'm glad I have your blessing, Dag. I'm sure the Wenches thank you. Or blame you.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I know you're joking, but let me reiterate that I'm not attempting to judge anyone's specific financial expenditures.

Especially not yours.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Right, because you know Katie would be mad if you said I shouldn't go to WenchCon. After all the work she did to convince me.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
My dad's a Chem-E kinda high up in the EPA and he's all for cutting it. The thing is, his idea of cuts and the cuts that have and are going to happen are very very different. He's of the opinion that if you got rid of around 60% of the people, you'd have a much more effective organization, as there's a huge load of inneffective, beaurcratic deadwood. However, his experience is that it's exactly the very people who know their jobs and are effective who are the people who are being encouraged to leave, so that the meetings and such he goes to now are even more full of nonesense and ignorance.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not sorry I posted it though, because this part of the conversation is getting interesting.

---