posted
Yes. It's very hard to find an unbiased link on it, but it's definitely happening.
I know Bush makes the distinction between frivolous and legitimate claims, because I've seen him quote numbers on it, but I need to see the transcript to see if he made that distinction adequately last night. Certainly, the one sentence everyone is quoting did not.
posted
I'd assumed that the specific mention of asbestos claims was a tip of the hat to Vice President Cheney, who acquired Dresser Industries for Halliburton and nearly doubled their size (good) but also acquired 300,000 asbestos lawsuits which cost Halliburton a pretty penny to deal with (bad).
Good to know they're a legitimate concern of tort reform. But are asbestos claims the worst example? If so, no worries, good on him. If not, Bush's constant mention is a clear gift to Cheney and an example of favoring legislation to benefit specific supporters.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The President has made it a priority to encourage Americans to dedicate at least two years or 4,000 hours over the course of their lifetimes to volunteer service and civic involvement. To help Americans answer his call, the President created the USA Freedom Corps; requested slightly over $1 billion in the FY 2005 Budget for funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, including $415 million for AmeriCorps programs and $150 million to support AmeriCorps education awards, $225 million for SeniorCorps, $20 million for Silver Scholarships for older Americans who volunteer 500 hours of service tutoring and mentoring students in exchange for a $1,000 scholarship; and has overseen the highest enrollment in the Peace Corps in 28 years. Between 2002 and 2003, the number of Americans volunteering increased from 59.8 million to 63.8 million.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That looks awfully like a copy/paste, Jay, and you certainly got the information from somewhere. Care to cite your source?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
They're the only ones I can think of where even some plaintiff lawyers are complaining loudly.
It's the best example, in my mind, of an area with many frivolous suits mixed in with many good ones. Some things, like the EMF suits from power lines, are frivolous en toto, but the more insidious problems are in areas with many legitimate claims, such as asbestos and medical malpractice.
posted
Well, I'm impressed and pleased that so many of you watched it. Even if you don't agree with our current president, it is good that you are listening to the State of the Union and giving feedback and keeping yourself educated on the current administration.
I have problems with people who complain about the administration, but stick their heads in the sand and refuse to educate themselves on the viewpoints of that administraion -- other than listening to other people's opinions, and not the president himself.
So I appreciate your debate here -- it shows you are open minded enough to be informed from the horses' mouth and make your comment based on that.
I hope (and believe) I would have done the same had Kerry won. I think no matter who is my president, I should be listening, as an American, to know what my leader is saying.
posted
Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time. Raising the national debt limit doesn't help either, it just pushes the responsibility for repaying the debt onto the next president.
Folks, if any of us ran our households like this, we'd be homeless and destitute on the streets. Whether you disklike Bush or adore him, are a Republican or Democrat, you have to see that he is not creating policies that make fiscal sense. Frankly, these policies don't even make it past a common sense test.
I become very worried about our country when I hear some of the hare-brained plans that are being considered for our country and how they will affect us fiscally.
The plan for Social Security is laughable in its deliberately deceptive double-speak. I can't even begin to cover it here in the forums...but read the Washington Post article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6903404/
What's worse is that it doesn't even mention MediCare, which is tied so closely to Social Security that any attempt to change one program will impact the other. Not to mention the fact that it's widely believed that MediCare will go bust years before SS.
What's so frustrating about this, is that we're just along for the ride. Our representatives don't live by the same rules as us, and aren't affected by their actions or in-actions until they run for election. Policy-making has stopped being about policy, and has just become another gimmick to sustain the career of self-serving politicians...
posted
Jay, govt funded "service" is not a conservative idea. As BW pointed out, Kerry wanted the same thing. Would you be in favor of this idea if Kerry was the President? I think it is dangerous to put too much faith in any one man. In many ways (especially govt spending) Bush is far to liberal for me.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time.
Sure you can. You just cut funding to other programs that don't fit your ideology.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the 4 years that Bush has been President, has the government gotten smaller?
Yes.
No Silverblue, it hasn't. The Department of Homeland Security's creation was the biggest expansion of government in the last couple decades. Government has ballooned under Bush.
The man has some great ideas, but it seems he wants to pull the money to fund them out of that bag that Mary Poppins had where she pulled lamps and mirrors from. I don't agree with him cutting 150 federal programs, especially without specifically naming what they are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe I have to say this but many of us that voted for the president don't support him blindly in all that he does. I for one hate the fact that the government has increased in size under Bush. The president has obviously made mistakes and he and all of his clear thinking supporters know this.
I'm sure we might disagree on what those mistakes were. I'm thinking about steel tariffs and the presciption drug benefit in particular.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does Bush have against offering specifics? He always has plans but never wants to tell anyone what the details of the plans are. Social Security plan, Iraq plan, Deficit Reduction plan, but never any details on the plans. I crave details!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does Bush have against offering specifics? He always has plans but never wants to tell anyone what the details of the plans are. Social Security plan, Iraq plan, Deficit Reduction plan, but never any details on the plans. I crave details!
That is just hilarious to me --- mainly because I remember saying nearly the same thing about Kerry during the campaign! Lots of talk and no specifics.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Someone needs to take the President, Vice-President, and all of Congress to a nice quiet place, and explain that you can't fund new projects and cut taxes at the same time.
Sure you can. You just cut funding to other programs that don't fit your ideology.
Oh yeah, you can cut costs that don't fit your ideology, like military veterans benefits, federal funding for infrastructure, or head-start programs for inner-city kids...
Hmmm...seems like a skewed ideology if you ask me. Cut some kids before school breakfast so that we can buy three more bombs. Give $100,000 to the families of dead soldiers, while you cut money from VA hospitals. (And by-the-by, isn't the act of paying the family of dead soldiers a little too similar to Saadam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers?)
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lack of specifics during a campaign is largely unavoidable (and wasn't entirely true, either, Kerry had numbers posted for some of his plans). Lack of specifics when you're right now at the moment writing a bill on the subject is much harder to excuse.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: (And by-the-by, isn't the act of paying the family of dead soldiers a little too similar to Saadam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may want to rethink that HT. Rewarding the family of murderers who kill themselves with the stated goal of taking as many innocents (including women and children) with them as possible is a far cry from helping the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if conservatives want smaller government, how come they worship their politicians like they were Jesus????
George W. doesn't believe he's made any mistakes and those who support him agree.
Taking the most obvious meaning of "those who support him" to be "all those who support him," you're entirely wrong. If you mean "some of those who support them," you're right, but your counter-example of you not liking everything Clinton did becomes irrelevant.
quote: That is just hilarious to me --- mainly because I remember saying nearly the same thing about Kerry during the campaign! Lots of talk and no specifics.
Not true Farmgirl. Kerry had most of his plans laid out either on his website, or he had given details in his speeches. No one ever paid any attention and the media and Conservatives kept saying he wasn't offering specifics, so even when he did they just kept harping on him until everyone believed it. Sure he was tight lipped about some things, I think in a campaign you sometimes needs to be (Bush was just as non forthcoming about his plans and details too, which used to infuriate me when he would say "How will Kerry pay for it?" without saying how he would pay for any of his programs).
But regardless of how the election went, it's over now. Bush is the man with the plan, he just needs to tell us what the friggin plan is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Even if you don't agree with our current president, it is good that you are listening to the State of the Union and giving feedback and keeping yourself educated on the current administration."
And if you kept yourself informed, you would have noticed that there are more lies, overt and implied, than there were sentences.
John Kerry was a total noodle. He is a sad, sad representation of the state of the democrats. He's the best they could do, and he sucked, big time.
Remember during the debates, when the moderator lofted up a softball question about how much they love their wives and Bush waxed passionate and loving, and then Kerry droned on like he was explaining the low income tax credit?
Kerry was a lousy candidate. (though I still think all the republicans who bashed his vietnam service were being lousy humans)
Bush has more balls than any president I've ever heard of.
He wants to spread/force democracy to every non-democratic nation, he wants to totally overhall social security (the most successful gov program ever), he wants to totally re-write the tax code, and then his stupid, stupid, stupid constitutional amendment about banning gay marriage.
The dude is confident, that's for sure.
I do want to make a note.
I believe changing social security into private savings accounts that could be passed on to other family members could be great, but if he lets people put that money into stocks, that is just pure idiocy to the point of almost evil.
it would be another way to let corporation fatheads get fatter while bilking and milking honest hardworking people out of their money.
The stock market is evil.
You might as well let them invest their savings on the super bowl, Eagles are +7 but the Pats are killers.
I think turning Social Security into personal savings accounts could be great, as long as they were ONLY savings accounts and could be touched until an old age like 60-ish.
...but turning them into savings accounts where they could be spent at anytime or would be tied into the stock market is a disaster falling.
I think the 60,000 page tax code needs to be simplified. Total and Absolute.
...but this is "The Christian Warrior" who gave billionaires 10 straight years of tax cuts come Osama Bin Laden, Iraq, Tsunamis or stock market crashes.
Does he really believe that allowing 320 billionaires to have more money, land and power will strength our society and the world over all?
I want Bush to do well, but he seems like a character from a Sci-fi film.
quote: Bush has more balls than any president I've ever heard of.
TR is my man all the way. Until Teddy Roosevelt was president, the Congress was the main arm of power in the government, and the nation was so pro business that they would clamor for the President to send in the national guard to break up strikes and send the people back to work.
TR was the first president to stand up and take command, he sent in troops to PROTECT the strikers, he put millions of acres of land under protection and single handedly created the National Parks system, he broke the trusts (that being especially significant when the nation had been laissez faire for more than a century and everyone thought this was radical and insane). Until Roosevelt's presidency 70% of all federal employees worked for the post office, and presidents tended to answer their own mail AND actually answer their own phones. Our army was the size of what NYC's police force is today. Roosevelt created the modern presidency, and never let congress or the world stop him from achieving his goals. I don't know of any president with more balls than that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus TR was a quote making machine "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" That's a classic
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there's a difference between being dictatorial -- something that Bush and FDR had in spades -- and actually having "balls."
"Balls" implies that you're willing to face the public, be honest about your policies and procedures, and work within existing legal structures instead of trying to subvert and/or undermine them in order to get your way more easily. This is, after all, the hard way, and the one that takes both more bravery and more skill. Bush's approach -- and FDR's approach, mind you -- has been quite the opposite.
I'm not sure that Teddy Roosevelt had the most "balls," but he was certainly up there.
quote:I believe changing social security into private savings accounts that could be passed on to other family members could be great, but if he lets people put that money into stocks, that is just pure idiocy to the point of almost evil.
Silverblue, Bush's plan would not allow people to invest in individual stocks, only in diversified mutual funds. When investing is done properly it is nothing like gambling and certainly not evil.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally index mutual funds (especially large and mid cap) are extremely safe, has low transaction costs, and requires virtually no management decisions on the part of the fund manager or investor.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I don't see the inherent evilness in it. - (see my other thread about social security specifically)
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are extremely safe viewed in the indefinite long term. Problems do arise, however, when one is looking in the short term or at a definite endpoint, because the stock market does go down at times, often dramatically.
Also, market gains for the next 100 years will not be as good as market gains for the previous hundred years. The past hundred years has been characterized by the utilization of modern manufacturing and production techniques and the shortening of the information delay. Nowadays we understand the basics of manufacturing and production, and the information delay is virtually nonexistent.
There could, of course, be another revolution in production, but such things are astonishingly rare. There have been . . . maybe 5 or 6 on the order of the one we've recently been in the process of utilizing. While there's certainly advancement remaining in information utilization, I do not think it belongs in the same category, and we already have much of the infrastructure in place, so advancement is not likely going to be as dramatic.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, current expert opinion supports your view that returns will likely be more moderate going forward. No one can know that for certain but I tend to agree. That doesn't change the need for private accounts. I would support private accounts even if the only investment options were bonds and REITs. At least in that scenario we would control our own destinee and not be constantly subject to the whims of government. Would you support private accounts if the stock market was not involved?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that the market for bonds and Reits would be fundamentally altered by such a restriction, because the increase in demand would be incredibly high.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. fixed income market including, govt, agency and corporate debt is much larger than the domestic stock market in terms of dollars. It is true that private accounts have the potential to alter market valuations but the bond market has more capacity to absorb new investments than any of the other choices mentioned. The REIT market on the other hand is relatively small and could be drastically effected by large inflows.
All of that being said, I am not in favor of taking out the stock market component. I was just wondering if the fact that stock mutual funds are an investment option is the primary concern of opponents of the idea or if they would be against private accounts in any form.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually in favor of ending the farce that SS is somehow a retirement savings program or really separate from the rest of the budget. Social Security is a social welfare program which is extensively linked to the rest of the budget, and it should be reformed in understanding of that status.
This means: Stop the separate tax. Payments should go out based on need. Costs and benefits of the system should be considered part of the general budget and not as an externality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
holden -- if any large parts of the bond purchases were of government instruments, there's almost no point. Its just exchanging direct payments for other forms of expenditures (in this case, bond interest payments), except now its a cost that looks even further in the future so people will ignore the coming disaster even more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, this would only be true if the govt issued new bonds. I am talking about investing in oustanding issues. Govt payments would remain the same.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm actually in favor of ending the farce that SS is somehow a retirement savings program or really separate from the rest of the budget. Social Security is a social welfare program which is extensively linked to the rest of the budget, and it should be reformed in understanding of that status
If we can't move towards private accounts I agree.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current government bond demand would go nowhere but up, so the governments would be effectively forced into issuing new bonds roughly equivalent to the amounts new bond purchasers were purchasing them in, unless it wanted to risk high inflation.
And as private accounts don't fix the fundamental problems in the system if we continue to treat it at all as a social welfare program (which Bush does), even if we have private accounts we're going to need to do what I'm talking about eventually. Most of what I'm talking about is just accounting for the costs properly instead of hiding them likely we currently do to inflate the strength of our economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of what I'm talking about is just accounting for the costs properly instead of hiding them likely we currently do to inflate the strength of our economy.
I'm in favor of that with a lot of areas of the economy.
Just getting costs truly reflected in price would solve or reduce a lot of problems in a lot of areas.
quote:The current government bond demand would go nowhere but up, so the governments would be effectively forced into issuing new bonds roughly equivalent to the amounts new bond purchasers were purchasing them in, unless it wanted to risk high inflation
Fugu, you have it backwards. As bond prices rise (due to high demand) interest rates fall. There is an inverse relationship between bond values (prices) and the rates that they pay. So high demand for bonds actually causes lower interest rates not higher. If the government were to issue more bonds as you suggest it would CAUSE not prevent inflation. Think about it, the more debt an entity has, the higher rate they must pay.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't have it backwords. Say one has some number of US bonds. Now, if one sells those bonds, the interest rate on them does not change. Higher demand for bonds in a market with no additional bonds will drive the cost of bonds up without changing the interest rate on those bonds.
Interest rates only fall as governments issue more bonds in a higher demand market, because they don't need to provide as much interest based incentive for purchase.
The thing is, institutional possession of bonds is (basically) based on two factors, how much risk they wish to engage in and how they estimate the exchange value of the currency they possess bonds in will change. A company which expects currency X to strengthen will purchase bonds in currency X, then trade those off for other instruments when they feel currency X is no longer sufficiently likely to strengthen further.
This helps stabilize currency exchange rates and international trade.
However, if some sort of change (like large numbers of US citizens purchasing them) drove bond demand up, these institutional players would be less likely to purchase US bonds in comparison to other bonds, as the bond price (due to demand) would be shifted out of relation to the bond interest rate and the currency exchange rate.
This would drive inflation and weaken the dollar (the dollar weakens whenever players sell dollar based instruments and purchase instruments in other currencies; this can cause inflation, though its often the other way around. It is better to say that inflation and a weak dollar are loosely correlated than to say that either one directly causes the other). In order to stop this, the federal government would release more bonds which would, as you say, lower bond interest rates (though inflation would be largely unimpacted by those interest rate changes, as they are driven by the demand side, not the supply side).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu's entirely right. In fact, his post could serve as a primer for bond pricing.
Another argument I've heard for Bush's Social Security plan -- that it would increase savings rates, thus restricting money supply -- is also flawed. Leaving aside the issue that capital investment is not and should never be confused with savings (especially when we're talking about money supply), Bush's plan replaces mandatory "tax" with what is, in most cases, a smaller mandatory "tax" that's allocated to capital investment. In other words, the percentage of personal income required to go to "savings" (although it's worth noting that in neither plan are any monies "saved" against anything) actually decreases under Bush's plan.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its worth pointing out that many of the "rules" one learns in economics classes, particularly the first 2 in the micro and the macro series (so 4 total), are heuristics, not really causal relationships.
For instance, holden's entirely right that when bond demand goes up interest rates on the bonds will go down -- but that's because the bond issuer issues more bonds, which is my point.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Fugu still wrong. Not close to a primer in bond pricing Tom.
quote: Say one has some number of US bonds. Now, if one sells those bonds, the interest rate on them does not change. Higher demand for bonds in a market with no additional bonds will drive the cost of bonds up without changing the interest rate on those bonds.
The interest rate may not change for the interest payer,(in this case the govt) but it certainly does for the new owner. You buy a bond at par ($1000 per bond) paying 5% interest. You bond increases in value due to increased demand to $1100 but is still paying a 5% coupon. Someone purchases the bond from you they will have to pay $1100 for the bond and will still receive the 5% coupon calculated on the original par value of $1000. This equates to a current yield of 4.5%. Interest rates have fallen. The yield to maturity on this bond is even lower because you paid a premium for the bond $1100 and it will mature at par $1000. So you will receive coupon payments during the life of the bond and will experience a $100 capital loss. (in order to figure exact yield to maturity we would have to designate a duration period for the bond)
quote:Interest rates only fall as governments issue more bonds in a higher demand market, because they don't need to provide as much interest based incentive for purchase.
It sounds like you are saying interest rates fall because the govt is issuing new bonds. It is true that in a high demand market the govt can offer less interest incentive and still sell the bonds but in general the more bonds the govt offers for sale, the higher the interest rate must be in order to sell them. There is only so much demand at each level of interest rates. Once the govt satisfies demand at each level, it must raise the rate they are paying in order to bring more demand to the market.
quote:However, if some sort of change (like large numbers of US citizens purchasing them) drove bond demand up, these institutional players would be less likely to purchase US bonds in comparison to other bonds, as the bond price (due to demand) would be shifted out of relation to the bond interest rate and the currency exchange rate.
It is certainly true that if the increase in demand for bonds was suficient to make yields unatractive to foreign governments they might sell their appreciated U.S. bonds and invest in other more attractive markets. This would add supply of bonds to the market, which would cause bond prices to fall and yields to rise. It would also as you pointed out due to the Law of one Price weaken the dollar. While it is possible that if this were to happen very suddenly it could lead to massive repatriation by foreigners and collapse of our markets but that is extremely unlikely given the scenario we are using in this example.
quote:In order to stop this, the federal government would release more bonds which would, as you say, lower bond interest rates
The act of the federal government issuing new bonds does not lower interest rates. If current rates are low they can issue bonds at lower rates yes, but the act of issuing new bonds (adding new supply)pushes the price of bonds down and the yield they must pay up. The exact opposite of what you said.
The only point you made that I agree with is that a weaker dollar can lead to inflation, sometimes. The idea that an increase in bond demand WILL lead to foreign repatriation and inflation is not true. In the short term at the very least the exact opposite is true.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If we end SS as it is now, what happens to the current recipients?"
Under Bush's plan, we would continue deficit spending -- at an increased rate -- to fund existing recipients.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bush plan would not change the system for current beneficiaries. Doing nothing however would force us at some point to either cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
BAH!!!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
