www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall President Bush

Alex wrote: Dear John,

Yes, I can't believe people could use this thread to make crass political comments against President George W. Bush, Head of State of the USA and leader of the free world.

Alex, one person's crass political comment is another's sacred truth. though I'm new here, I have to say that personally I am offended by praise for Bush. Why should you be allowed to praise Bush but not talk about his shortcomings?

Zenovia wrote: Then again, didn't he trash Kosovo. Doesn't seem to be much on the news about what's going on there. The Christian Serb minority is leaving because the UN soldiers are not protecting them, and I believe all the Orthodox Churches and monasteries have been demolished...

Zenovia,

Thanks for mentioning Kosovo. I will never forget the Sunday, it was rainy & dreary, when America bombed Serbia on Orthodox Easter. Even today Serbia has not completely rebuilt after the war. If you can compare degrees of suffering from war, maybe the attack on Iraq has been the greater sin, but I personally suffered more from what America did in the Balkans. Millions of Americans still believe the spin the govt. & media put on it: Serbs=evil, Balkan Muslims=decent & moral.

Stojgniev

What still amazes me is that otherwise sane and reasonable people expect politicians to be other than what they are. Even some who are now considered statesmen made decisions that, in retrospect, may not have been wise. As for the rest of the world, our leaders are capable of doing good or evil, just like the leaders anywhere else.

Dear Stoyjniev,

And when has anyone here been forbidden anyone to talk about Mr. Bush's shortcomings?

You don't like Mr. Bush, that is fine. Did you like Mr. Bill Clinton better?

Happily, he didn't bomb Poland.

Poland is, however, an ally to the U.S. in Iraq.

But the point is that when conservatives, (and while I am not an American, I am a conservative,) praise a conservative U.S. President, then they are pilloried, and, in our brother Moe's case, our praise of Bush is compared to idol-worship et alia.

Criticism is fine but I do have a problem with American citizens villifying their head of state beyond a certain extent. No one is that evil and, after a while, it sounds like the voice of a shrill banshee.

As for what is acceptable criticism and what is not - that is up to the Administrator and Moderators here. That is none of my business, nor do I make it my business.

Mr. Clinton was actually impeached for lying, as I recall. But liberals came to his defence tooth and nail.

On moral terms alone, Mr. Clinton was a despicable president, a disgrace to the Oval Office. And one doesn't have to be a conservative to assert that.

I saw the State of the Union address on television the other night.

What I saw was strong evidence to suggest the USA is a great nation in a number of ways.

That it isn't perfect - well, the only ones who posit "perfection" and deny the impact of original sin in the human system are Marxists and liberals with their naive 19th century philosophies.

I, as a conservative, certainly would never entertain such illusions.

Alex

Dear Alex,

So glad to hear that you are a conservative and an academic! (I mean academic its best sense)

I'm a conservative democrat. Being a Democrat is about the only way to get elected locally. The Republican primaries here have few candidates to choose from.

All bets are covered though. My bride is a Republican.

Paul

In looking back at Zenovia's post, especiallly after Pani Rose's quote from Eisenhower, I realized that I missed his point. Rather than talking about the sustainability of SS, he was talking about the level of benefits that it provides. The Eisenhower quote is a good response. The system is a saftey net to insure mitigate poverty among folks are retired, bereaved, etc.

Dan, if there is a "scam" it is perpetrated by those who compare SS to an annuity. I invest no money in SS; I have no money in the SS system. My money is, for the most part, used to pay benefits to others right now. In addition there are some monies collected and put into secure government bonds to help with scheduled future payments.

This arrangement enabled the problem of poverty among the elderly to be addressed at once, rather than saying tough luck to them, and only making preparations for the next generation. It seems that some folks nowadays wish to be absolved of any responsibility to the generation that came before them, notwithstanding all the benefits that they have gotten from that generation's work.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!"

There is always a trade-off in investments between risk and reward. I tend to be very conservative in investments because I am not especially motivated toward becoming "filthy rich", I can prepare adequately for retirement with investements that pay more modestly but are relatively secure from loss (even so our paper losses in 2002 were in six figures). Btw the numbers used in the planning of the Bush administration is that the returns on invested monies will jump from 3% (present trust monies) to 4.6% (privatized accounts). But there will be added risk on the latter. And the trillion dollar transition costs are not factored into this relative payout.


Adjustments to maintain solvency have been done from time to time. Likewise dire predictions have been made. Bush, while running for congress in 1978 predicted the bankruptcy of the SS system in a decade. :rolleyes:

I posted the SS board's analysis previously. Bush quotes their numbers (trust fund emptied in 2042, after which income to support only 74% of scheduled benefits, in no action is taken). That's a problem that requires some fixing. Not a crisis. And Bush's own analysts admit that privatization, whatever its other merits, does nothing - nothing - to address that problem.

More recent figures from the congressional budget office, suggest that the trust fund will last until 2052, afterwhich 80% of benefits could be supported. The report that I linked to earlier indicates that if we take some modest actions now, 40-50 years in advance of trust fund depletion, the system will be solvent for the foreseeable future. I think that Bush would enjoy bipartisan support on that goal.

djs,

If I'm reading your post right you are already among the "filthy rich". By your standards I am a mere pauper and one of the common men you speak about. I cannot afford overly conservative investments. In order to retire at all I must invest in higher risk stocks and mutual funds...and so must everyone else who is among the commoners if they wish to ever retire. Again, if I'm reading your right, you are not among those one would call a common man and as recent studies have shown are among the rather well to do Democrats who try to fool the rest of us into thinking that you either understand our situation or even care about it.

Now, you seem to be better than most of the Democrat leadership so I won't saddle you with any undue negative criticism, but really the Democrats haven't represented the common man for many many years.

Dan L

Dan,
I must have made a mistatement somewhere to have given you that impression. But your comments raise a couple of interesting points.

If one has the ability to put aside a little money early in life, the compounding of interest in conservative instruments builds up greatly over a life-time of work. If not, then when the ability to save is gained, there is a need for higher returns, and therefore riskier instruments to build to the saem level. But higher risk entails the real possibility of loss. We should anticipate that there will be winners and losers in these accounts. Those who chose to opt into private accounts forgo a portion of the SS that they would otherwise get. What do we do with the losers? Just say: tough luck? Are we, despite presumably noble intentions, again going to accept poverty among the elderly? Will there be a bailout for these folks, or is that just for corporations?

I think the goal of encouraging more savings and investments is laudable - and remarkably so from in a land in which the lottery :rolleyes: is a favorite way to raise government revenue. And the idea of of ownership of the assests is also good. But I think that these aims should be developed outside of the SS system, so that it can work as the safety net that helps to dispel the fear of undertaking risk.

Dear Stojgniev,

It seems you are not aware that the Muslims that are dying in Iraq are being killed by 'Muslim' extremists, and not by Americans. The people are also suffering because of those extremists, and not because of America. They also kidnap foreign workers so they'll leave and not be able to bebuild it.

America made two mistakes in this war. One was made by Bremer, when he disolved the Iraqi army, rather than just eliminate it's top brass. The other was not securing the safety of a top Muslim cleric. We depended on his influence, and he was murdered the first week he entered Iraq.

The main problem in that part of the world, (and I have said this so often), is that Islam is a religious/political system, somewhat like fascism and communism, where the state of 'Islam' is more important than the individual.

Kosovo is an example. The Serbs could leave when threatened, (as they have and are still doing), but the Moslems 'dare' not, for their unfortunate situation is considered their 'fate'. They must suffer and remain in the territory they live in, for the expansion of the religious/political state of 'Islam'.

Another example is Israel. Arafat was paid millions if not billions, in order to keep his people in dire poverty. That way they will be willing to die for the preservation and expansion of 'Islam'.

I think though that it is very unfair to compare Pres. Bush to Pres. Clinton. They are on opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

Zenovia

I more clearly understand your point. However, SS by itself will not keep the elderly out of poverty. Moreover, some people work all of their lives and never make enough to save anything beyond SS. Many others make enough to save but live on impulse so much that they do not save. They wind up being burdens on the Welfare system when they get old.

I do not believe the Democrats when they say the system is not in trouble not only because I've been looking at this issue ever since the 1970's and the Dems themselves said the system was in crisis up until the point that Mr. Bush began to actually propose something needs to be done.

Dan L

I don't actually know the numbers for scheduled benefits. My mother-in-law, however, lives on SS alone, more or less. She is fierecly independent, and manages OK, but only because she owns her own home (and, owing to CA's prop 13 she can afford the property taxes), and can take public transportation around the city. She is probably technically in poverty but she is not impoverished.

I think everyone is on the about same page about SS solvency. That means, if nothing is done, a payment cut to 74-80% of scheduled benfits after 2042-2052. This shortfall needs to be addressed, now. But this issue is entirely separate frm the privatization issue, which will exacerbate the near-term shortfall. The Democrats will not cooperate on this.

While I might abstain from the most extreme of Moe's remarks, I agree that the President has engaged in a war that was initiated on false pretenses, has abused and ignored the concepts of civil liberty on which this country was founded and which have been one of its proudest boasts through the years, and continues to pursue policies that make this nation appear to much of the rest of the world as a less glorious place than it has always been and will hopefully be again.

That anyone should suggest that disagreeing with the President's stance on any or all matters is to be a less than loyal American is to cast mud on all for which this nation stands. Being an American is all about having the right to disagree with any politician's views on any matter. It is for that right, among others, that American men and women fought and died in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the VietNam War, and the myriad Middle and Far East conflicts that have occupied our military and caused us to bury our young in recent years.

I'd strongly suggest that there are many forums out there which offer places to sound off bombastically for or against George Bush or any other political figure, left, right, or centrist. While I find that the current Administration negatively effects the quality of my secular life, it doesn't impact my religious life, thus I find it unfortunate that one of the places in which I practice my religious life - this Forum - needs to become an arena in which folks feel compelled to debate partisan politics.

I suggest that all who feel these inner needs go create blogs and peddle your opinions to those net denizens who care to spend their time in visceral opining about the merits or shortcomings of various politicians, too few of whom care anything at all about the American public, particularly those whose opinions are not in lockstep with their own.

Many years,

Neil, who generally refrains from posting on any political issue and would likely regret doing so this time, except that he will exercise the option to forego reading this thread from this point onward, having learned from the mistake of doing so today

Alex,

Thank you for your affirming words about the USA and her president. Your comments seem to have stirred up some rather visceral reactions against both the country and her President. I think it's a bad habit some have fallen into. I fell into it during and for a time after myself. I believe it is possible to be troubled and to work against the areas in our common life that are wrongly directed and still be very proud of what God has wrought through this nation. The balance can be tricky but it is attainable.

Thanks for your kind words.

Dan L

Should read: "I fell into that bad habit during and some time after VIET NAM..." Sorry about the deletion.

Dan L

Totenkopfen oder Waffen?

Seems to me in Texas the system that DJS is talking about is already in place, I hope I have the right state. It is working well, it allows you not to put money into SS, or maybe a minimum amount and then invest the rest.

Unfortunately, there are people who just have an inate sence of how to invest properly and that is awesome. At the hospital some months ago, the X-ray tech and I were talking about e-bay, which led to our talking about waiting on the Lord, instead of making bills, which led to my telling her that if she would put away TEN DOLLARS A DAY, that is all one has to do, by retirement she would be a millionaire several times over. I learned this too late in life But, this led to a discussion with the transport person. I was quit astonished at his sence of working the stock market. Yes he pushed beds and wheelchairs around the hospital. HE knew what he was talking about, how to manage his stocks, and decided he would put away the TEN DOLLARS A DAY on top of it.

The bottom line is, it is not necessarily how much we have, but what we do with it. The first and most important is to give the FIRST FRUITS TO THE LORD. Set aside in your head the first full pay check that you receive for the year. During the course of that year, you need to make sure that it is given to the Church. Then we should be tithing 10% to God. I think the Church says 5% for the Church and 5% for other works.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept" (I Corinthians 15:20). Paul had in mind the first sheaf (firstfruits) of the barley harvest (Leviticus 23:10). When God accepted the firstfruits, they became the guarantee that the rest of the crop would indeed be harvested, for Jesus himself is the "first fruits" (I Corinthians 15:23). Although a number of people mentioned the Bible were resurrected from the dead (including Jairus' daughter and Lazarus), they simply died again in due season. However, Jesus was the first to be resurrected from death and the grave, never to die again. He alone is the "Firstfruits."

The bottom line is if we did this then we would not be fussing about Social Security. Pani Rose who wishes she had been successful at doing so. But, unfortuneatly or fortunately, I had to take disability retirement and was not able to complete what was at hand because of very high medical bills. That is what SS was for, to reassure us that we would have help. But first of all, we must look to God as our source and help ourselves.

Now I know I am singing to the choir, but let us take a look at our own selves first. Have we done what God has asked of us in our finances in the blessings he has poured upon us? If so, we would not be looking to the government to meet our needs, only God.

Pani Rose