posted
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! Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
This would only be true if Tom had said that it sums up why it's difficult for him to like Bush as opposed to Clinton. In reality, someone else brought up Clinton.
I still maintain that what Clinton would or would not have said, and what criticism Clinton would have or would not have received has no relevance to this discussion.
This discussion is about what Bush said and why it truly bothers some of us, not about what Clinton said.
That's all I am going to say on the subject of Clinton.
[ February 09, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Consider this:
When you decide to use a personal account and you put a dollar into it, that dollar doesn't go toward the general Social Security fund. The way Social Security is structured now is such that today's workers are paying for today's retirees. Diverting your money to invest it forces the government to come up with more money to pay for the benifits guaranteed to today's retirees. This is why Bush's plan is expected to cost trillions of dollars over the next 20 years. I'm not against the principle of government-supported retirement investing, but I am against Bush's plan because there's no apparent source for all this money we will need to cover it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, specifically, I find the Clinton references a bit baffling because I was never a huge Clinton fan. You can still find posts of mine criticizing his criminal attacks on Afghanistan if you check out the BML forum in the Wayback Archive.
But that said, I think one thing Clinton did right -- whether it was genuine or not -- was his tone. When the man spoke -- and it may be just me, but I don't think I'm in the minority on this one -- it seemed like he got it. The whole "I feel your pain" thing is a dirty joke nowadays, but one of the reasons the line was so memorable was that, in its context, it was appropriate and sympathetic and delivered believably. And it was then followed up with observations that suggested that he really did understand the issue and the problem at hand, and was concerned about it, and genuinely wanted to make things better.
Now, some of this was just acting -- and Clinton was indeed a better actor than Bush. We're talking about a guy who'd obsessively practice his expressions in front of a mirror, for God's sake. But I think that even when acting, you have to know what the appropriately sympathetic response would be before you can present the appearance of sympathy; Clinton may have faked his responses, but something made him capable of figuring out what response to use.
I don't get that from Bush. Only in very specific cases -- like, say, where he's called upon to pray for somebody, or look stern or smug or whatever -- do I ever get the impression that he knows what he should be saying, much less that he knows why he should be saying it. (And I'll settle for the latter in a president; I don't believe that there will ever be a president in my lifetime who'll actually know what it's like to be a single mother or a crack addict or a college dropout trying to get her inkblots into a gallery, but I think it's not too much to expect a president empathetic enough to imagine what those people must be feeling and treat them accordingly.)
And I guess that's the big thing: empathy. I don't get the impression that Bush has even a tiny smidgen of it. Even his much-observed and "folksy" habit of assigning diminutive nicknames to random people seems presumptive and insulting to me, and it's often cited as one of his most human traits. Besides what I think is a genuine ability to feel what he thinks is the presence of God when he bows his head, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any other example that demonstrates that Bush is capable of feeling anyone else's pain, even a little.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
actually, i said it, and the original quote was:
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plus wouldn’t it be great for Government to have less money to waste
It will have less money to waste but will need to continue to spend more money...which means...borrow more. Which means increased deficit spending which means increased debt.
And I don't know about you, but anyone who dreams about working three jobs has a seriously messed up dream. She wasn't working three jobs and losing sleep to have a dream...anyone who sacfices even healthy rest to make money is making ends meet and not much else. Frankly, I am surprised his handlers picked Ms. Mornin to speak.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, you could be right in that perhaps that's what Bush was trying to say.
The problem I see is that this woman isn't trying to achieve any dreams - she's simply trying to survive. Bush's response just came off as tasteless and out of touch in my opinion.
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.
How wonderful. In fact, I think every employer in the country should cut their salaries, so that we all have to work multiple jobs.
In fairness, Jay's got a point, kind of. This sort of thing is a nice story when you're a poor child of immigrants, the first in your family to go to college, on your way to success, and so forth. In short, when it's a transitional period; when your poverty is an obstacle to be overcome en route to something better.
However, it says something slightly pathetic about our economy when there are sixty-five year olds who have to bag groceries to buy food.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The great thing about private accounts is that it will help out the economy.
Okay. How about we fix the Social Security problem that Tom outlined first, though? Bush implies, but fails to explain how, private accounts do that. Which is sly of him, because they don't.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:but will need to continue to spend more money
No, we don't NEED to continue to spend more money. There are billions of dollars spent that don't need to be spent, in almost every federal program. Many programs don't need to exist at all.
What this country NEEDS is to figure out the difference between needs and wants.
quote:What this country NEEDS is to figure out the difference between needs and wants.
It's a good thing that there are so many politicians, compoanies, and other groups who are working towards this goal then. Oh wait...
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, My sarcasm wasn't directed at you. More like society at large. Everywhere you look you see groups specifically set out to attack the individual and convince them that wants are needs, but there don't seem to be many groups that do the opposite.
edit: The promulgation of groups or other external circumstances that help this reality testing and reconceptualization is one of my career goals. And I'll tell you, it's hella more difficult than making people feel bad about themselves to sell them face strips.
posted
I didn't think it was - I was agreeing with you. I find the inability to distinguish the two to be one of the most destructive trends in our culture.
I'm sure I don't make the distinction between wants and needs perfectly. But the pure waste, indebtedness, and unhappiness it causes in so many people scares me sometimes.
And this: "Everywhere you look you see groups specifically set out to attack the individual and convince them that wants are needs, but there don't seem to be many groups that do the opposite" is one of the prime reasons for it.
A friend of mine is the director of a non-profit group in Philly. One of her projects is providing free tax advice to lower income people. We talked about this when it came around last year and one of things she got on about was the H & R Block "we're a check cashing place" instant refund thing where they give you some of your money right away and keep the rest of it when it comes in (I forget the actual percentage, but it was significant). 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.
Although, Philly's now in mourning because the Eagles didn't win the Superbowl, so it's an absurd world we live in anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Can we stipulate that my Ivy League educated friend probably isn't an idiot and is probably actually providing a very important service that many people aren't otherwise going to have access to?
edit: Funny story about that. This year, they held an honest to goodness bake sale to raise money for this program. I looked at my friend strangely when she told me that - wasn't her idea nd the other person ran it - but I baked my goods and sent them along. The kicker, they did it in conjunction with a business that let set up outside of their store and matched what they brought in. That company was, of course, Wal-Mart.
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.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sorry I posted it though, because this part of the conversation is getting interesting.
I guess the big question is "who determines need vs. want?" The people that are, well, "needy" don't really have representation in the highest positions in the land. To bring this back to Tom's original posting, one of the things that made Bush's comment cringe-worthy was his blatant misunderstanding of what it means to have three jobs as a person closing in on retirement.
If government were truly local, "needs" might make it to the table. But politicians representing neighborhoods, cities and states are all seated in the same city, far far away from where their people are located. Who has access to them? Not Ms. Mornin unless she is hand-picked by handlers to speak. I can send e-mail to my congressman (go Dennis!) but let's face it, he probably doesn't read it. Some underling does and it probably won't get to Dennis in any meaningful way.
I guess my hypothesis is that those that determine what "needs" to be spent in the country have very different ideas or understandings of what a good portion of this population feels they need. Or in fact really need.
posted
Typical government headcount reduction involves "early outs," which allow people to take early retirement with no penalty. Some even give cash.
This encourages the people who can readily get consulting contracts to leave - in other words, effective people with marketable skills.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh ya. plus the entrenched beaucratic atmosphere tends to rub people who can actually achieve things the wrong way while rewarding people whose main skill is fitting into a beaurocracy. edit: Plus, many of the people who care are pretty pissed about how they've been treated, e.g. the government squelching the environmental impact report for the New York 9/11 incident among so many other things.
I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that while the government has tons of programs that need cutting and/or reduction, the cuts and reductions that are going on are very poorly conceived. I support the idea of cutting down the size of the government, but I strongly oppose most of the people who want to be the ones to do it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
