Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.


"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dlikl2$nt8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Hi,
>
> But have Bush's economic policies changed since he was re-elected
(elected?)
> in 2004?

Yes, Bush promised that he would not touch Social Security and he would
verbally attack any person would said he would.


>
> Maybe. That depends largely on how Iraq turns out. He may be remembered
as
> the one who brought peace and democracy to the Middle-East, while all
> previous US presidents failed.
>

That's right.


> He may be remembered as the one who tried to "save" Social Security when
> there was still time. Given that his plan was scrapped, SS is back to
> facing the same problem: ever fewer workers trying to support ever more
> retirees from a tax on wages only. Bush tried to shift the cost of
> supporting the US elderly from a wage tax on US workers to the growrh
> generated by the global economic expansion.

Social Security is not in trouble and there are no WMD in Iraq.



>
> The cost of health benefits will continue to increase as more people live
> ever longer. Explain just which benefits he took away--or tried to. You
> mean that complicated drug addition to Medicare?
>
> >....to take away interest deductions
> > on mortgages,
>
> And (speaking as an economics professor) what do you think would be the
> consequences of that on housing prices? And on home ownership?
>

If you take away the morgage deduction, then home prices will fall. Then
Bush will be blessed by Wall-Street sharkies as the American middle-class
can no longer plan for retirement through capital gains on home ownership.



> That has been happening for decades. But a question-- which do you
prefer:
> jobs move to Mexico? Or the Mexicans move here for those jobs?
> And isn't that the choice? (I mean in the real world).

Jobs are moving to Mexico and China and India. But, this is an issue of
national sovereignty. Mexico wants a de facto take over of the American
Southwest and we as Americans cannot allow that.



> "Payroll taxes" means FICA, which must be ever increased to cover Social
> Security obligations. (see above), We are paying for that extra federal
> spending by borrowing, largely from abroad.
>
Why Social Security is not in any trouble.


>
> Sure, but who should decide what they get and who should pay for it and
how?
> For example, can you imagine Congress funding any health care that
includes
> abortions? Or even contraception? Remember the Hillary Clinton proposal
> that would outlaw any medical treatment that was not provided by the
> government?

Absolutely, I don't want government medicine.





>


.

Relevant Pages

  • The economic consequences of George Bush: Ugly; very, very ugly; will take years to set things righ
    ... The economic consequences of George W. Bush ... American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris -- or even the Yukon ... It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, ... financially ruinous "war of choice" in Iraq. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: The Goddess Can Write!
    ... *From Address was full of lies, ... If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power. ... Reform of the intelligence community remains a fact only on paper – more than two months have gone by without the president appointing the new intelligence czar everyone knows will be critical to that task. ... President Bush pressured skeptical lawmakers Thursday to back the most dramatic Social Security changes in the program's 70-year history, targeting politically vulnerable Democratic senators to rally support for his plan. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Hillary gets the last laugh
    ... collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the ... Mr. Bush had agreed to pump ... The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, ... But his housing policies and hands-off approach to ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?
    ... Bush has blown the ... Second, regarding Social Security, I disagree. ... so that he could push through his plan to destroy the system as we know ... We have, however, ignored by TRANSFER of the shortfall to the investor, and if we do include this transfer, the investor obviously needs to earn MORE than market return in order to come out ahead, because he has to make up the 30% shortfall. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Time Travel, Saigon "Watching George Bush Trying to Pull a Rabbit Out of His Hat"
    ... Watching George Bush Trying to Pull a Rabbit Out of His Hat ... This time it's called "social security reform." ... Social security does not need fixing, and it is perhaps the only thing in America that doesn't. ... The Commerce Department reported that high energy costs are sapping the purchasing power of consumers and sinking the U.S. economy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast