Reasons to Vote for Bush

[Usually Lurkin]

this topic might already exist, but Arne asked someone to post on the subject, so here's one reason (feel free to post more)

"he's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe, that I'm ok."
-Ashley Faulkner
Ashley's Story

[vinnieponte]

f bush thats all [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[capitalcity]

4 more years.

[mavsman55]

Vinnie do you actually believe that enhances this discussion at all??


George Bush:

Lower Taxes
Pro-Life
Anti-Gay Marriage
Safety

That sums a lot of it up

[MavKikiNYC]

1)National Security.


The Bush administration continues to bleach the shit stains out of the White House from the Clinton administration.

[dude1394]

4 more years, 4 more years...

No Sandy Berger, Madeline Allbright, Michael (the maggot) Moore, jimmah' carter, al sharpton, al gore anywhere CLOSE to power.

And especially Alec Baldwin...

America (____) Yeah!!!

[Usually Lurkin]

social security reform (finally somebody willing to actually do something about it)
education reform
faith based initiatives (social welfare reform)

what happened to Arne? I thought he wanted this thread so that we could discuss issues instead of throwing empty insults around?

[Drbio]

UL- he voted for this thread before voting against it.

[Mavdog]

well, if Bush does win another term I can look forward to four more years of great material for Jon Stewart...

[Arne]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
social security reform (finally somebody willing to actually do something about it)
education reform
faith based initiatives (social welfare reform)

what happened to Arne? I thought he wanted this thread so that we could discuss issues instead of throwing empty insults around?

Yeah, a social security reform would be a good thing, but you won't get a good one, if you pay 500.000.000 Dollars for (edited by a Dallas-Mavs.com moderator) "defending"...

If you would pay someone social only a third of that money, he could realize that all the children in the world could go to school...

Post criptum: I'm not the one who throws around with "empty insults"! I'm the one being called anti-Semite, anti-American, and worst of all: Adolf.

So please be quiet.

[reeds]

social security reform???? Lurkin- I am on the ground laughing at that..

Look where social security was before Bush took office and where it is now- please come back and tell me what you found....im dying to hear to whole report... the best reform is obvious, get bush out of office

[Drbio]

Where did someone call you Adolf? If they did I would like to see it.

If you can't produce it, please stfu about it. I haven't seen anyone call you that at all.

[Arne]

So, look at the last post of me in the Fahrenheit 9/11 Topic.

And on the first page you will see it again, if you search for the time and date.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Arne

Yeah, a social security reform would be a good thing, but you won't get a good one, if you pay 500.000.000 Dollars for fucking "defending"...
If you would pay someone social only a third of that money, he could realize that all the children in the world could go to school...

Of course, if we roll back defense and intelligence the way the last president was, citizens will continue to die in increasing numbers due to terrorist attack. That would suck.

The simple fact is we have a lot more people recieving social security, and fewer paying in. Without a major overhaul, you have to raise taxes a lot to pay for the recipients. No way around that unless somehow each individual pays for him- or her-self, by way of some mechanism that gains a higher yield.

Post criptum: I'm not the one who throws around with "empty insults"! I'm the one being called anti-Semite, anti-American, and worst of all: Adolf. So please be quiet.

You asked someone to post reasons to vote for Bush for the sake of discussion. I obliged. I assume you asked for this because you want to avoid the empty insults that have been thrown around in place of discussion. If so, why ask me to be quiet? I've never called you a name in my life, and it's unfair for you to treat me as if I did.

[Drbio]

Silly UL....liberals don't get held to their own republican expectations. Silly silly silly.

[Arne]

@Usually Lurkin
I'm sorry about that one! I just didn't get what you said... Maybe it was just because I expected somebody to insult me, like in the other treads... Never mind.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

The simple fact is we have a lot more people recieving social security, and fewer paying in. Without a major overhaul, you have to raise taxes a lot to pay for the recipients. No way around that unless somehow each individual pays for him- or her-self, by way of some mechanism that gains a higher yield.

So would someone please explain how Bush's proposal on "privatizing" social security, allowing for the younger workers to NOT put in the money needed to pay for the SS payments going to retirees, is going to "save" social security?

It isn't, and it won't. It will compound the deficiency in the account, and require greater infusion of general funds, which means what? Yes, a tax increase....

This is a reason to NOT vote for Bush if this is an issue that is important to you.

[seal614]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on social security (other than its inception)... but...

Why do we pay the government money just to have them give it back to us later? Granted it's not 1:1... but in simple terms, what else does it do for us?

Isn't there a benefit to managing your own money, and putting away the exact same amount yourself? Invest it? I mean, so much time is spent on this.

I would actually like to be informed though, if anybody has any insight into how the system actually works.

- Brian

[Usually Lurkin]

no problem, Arne. There's a lot of over-agression, and I understand how name calling can put you on edge.

To be honest, I'll vote Bush for a lot of reasons, but the abortion issue trumps all others. It's the holocaust, or the slavery of our day. It's absolutely inhumane and so many people are just accepting it as a matter of societal choice. There are so many innocents are dying, though, that if you have a chance to stop it, you have to take it.

If all else were equal and Kerry were the pro-lifer and Bush the pro-abortionist, I might vote the other way.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
social security reform???? Lurkin- I am on the ground laughing at that..

Look where social security was before Bush took office and where it is now- please come back and tell me what you found....im dying to hear to whole report... the best reform is obvious, get bush out of office

Haha, funny how you can say something like this and not back it up with any facts or numbers. Why don't you prove this for us.

Watch out Google, here comes reeds!

[reeds]

The Bush Record: Robbing Social Security to Pay for Risky Tax Schemes
Bush broke his promise to protect the Social Security surplus and is looting the Social Security Trust Fund, spending every dime on tax cuts for the wealthy. His proposals to privatize Social Security would cost trillions, cut benefits and raise the retirement age.

Bush Looted the Social Security Trust Fund
Bush's promise: "My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security System, where it belongs."1

Bush broke his promise in record time. To cover the cost of his tax cuts, Bush will have to spend the entire projected Social Security surplus of $2.4 trillion from 2005 through 2014.2

In fact, Bush was already planning on looting the Social Security trust fund when he made that promise. In August 2001, USA Today reported, "The White House is backing away from its pledge to protect every cent of Social Security reserves in the face of a report today that the government is tapping Social Security taxes for other programs."3

The Privatization Nightmare
Can you afford to foot a $1 trillion bill? In 2001, Bush's Social Security reform commission suggested partial privatization Social Security. Independent analysis of the President's proposals to privatize Social Security have noted than any such plan would cost at least $1 trillion. Bush has not said where this money would come from.4

And for your $1 trillion, you get benefit cuts. Bush's Social Security reform commission released three final plans in December 2001, all promoting privatization. The New York Times reported: "President Bush's Social Security Commission set out three options today for allowing workers to establish individual investment accounts and acknowledged that the proposals would have to be accompanied by benefit cuts or other painful steps if the retirement system was to avert a long-term financial crisis."5

Sources: 1Bush Radio



MavsMan55- want more? Just ask..I'd be happy to help...

[Usually Lurkin]

factcheck.org discusses this issue in response to a Kerry campaign lie about Bush cutting benefits
Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits
It's not Bush's plan, and it wouldn't cut benefits.

•Bush hasn't proposed any specific plan . This ad refers to one of three different possible "reform models" that were detailed in the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in December 2001. Bush hasn't endorsed any of them. He may propose something similar if elected, but so far hasn't spelled out for voters exactly what he has in mind.
. . .
•Even for future retirees, benefits will growÂ*under theÂ*"reform model" the Kerry ad refers to. That modelÂ*would reduce the rate at which the starting point for future benefits is expected to grow, by increasing starting benefitsÂ*to keep pace with rising prices, rather than with rising wages as has been the case since 1977

and particularly applicable to the claim Reeds posted that:

"President Bush's Social Security Commission set out three options today for allowing workers to establish individual investment accounts and acknowledged that the proposals would have to be accompanied by benefit cuts or other painful steps if the retirement system was to avert a long-term financial crisis.

factcheck replied:

The commission stated that all three of the possibleÂ*"reform models"Â*it examined would allow for increases in benefit levels paid to future retirees:
Commission's Final Report: In fact, every Commission Reform Model will increase benefits at least as fast as inflation, ensuring that no future generation of retirees receives less purchasing power than today’s retirees. Hence, fears that benefits will be cut or retirees thrown into poverty are simply false.

It should be noted that the president's commission was bipartisan

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: seal614

Why do we pay the government money just to have them give it back to us later? Granted it's not 1:1... but in simple terms, what else does it do for us?

Isn't there a benefit to managing your own money, and putting away the exact same amount yourself? Invest it? I mean, so much time is spent on this.

I would actually like to be informed though, if anybody has any insight into how the system actually works.

- Brian

Brian, although some could argue that giving back taxes help to distribute richness, there is a solid point behind your words. The point is simple, money in the hands of the government is almost always expensier than in the hands of citizens. The exceptions are when the government makes (or contracts and manages) works or activities that people couldn't make by themselves at a lower cost (cost including time, effort, coordination), for example, bridges, streets, security, garbage collection, and so forth. However, it must be considered that there is an extra cost for managing those resources, salaries, offices and buildings for government employees, for example. But, when they are returning taxes, there is always a waste of money in the process: you pay $1, they retun to you $0.20, say, but it cost $0.05, say, in doing it. The simplest logic says that you could have payed only $0.75 instead of $0.80 cause there wouldn't be cost for returning. Some could argue also that those 5 cents allows more employment in the government, but we shouldn't forget that those positions aren't productive at all, at least never more than in your hands.

Nonetheless, you won't see ever the government admitting this fact. I haven't seen it, leastwise.