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

While I might disagree with Neil�s position on political issues, I would like to use his post as an example of how one should disagree. Although I must say that I hope that Neil and all posters would always (not just �might�) abstain from the extremeness of Moe�s remarks.

Neil disagrees with President Bush on the issues but Neil does not go to the extreme of Moe�s comparing President Bush to Satan. I might be wrong, but I suspect that Neil considers the President to be incorrect on many issues but that he probably has not considered the possibility that the President is really Satan in human form. That is my problem with posts on either side which skip past principled disagreement and engage only in name-calling. In the end, such people only succeed in getting readers to not take anything they post seriously.

Let�s remember that there is bit of hypocrite in each of us.

I have received numerous complaints over the years by liberals complaining that a conservative has posted something unacceptably offensive against a liberal (either an individual or a position). I have yet � in almost eight years � to receive a complaint from a liberal telling me that a liberal poster has crossed the line and that his or her post is unacceptable. I consider this to be a major problem and I am surprised that liberals who post here do not undertake an effort to police their own. When someone who holds a similar view to someone who has expressed that view in an extreme way, and posts in support of that view without first rejecting the extremist, unacceptable argument made by another, that person implicitly endorses such �over the line� remarks. When they do that readers loose respect for everyone holding that position.

I�m not suggesting that conservatives are much better. While I have received complaints from conservatives that some posts by conservatives are offensive and need to be addressed or deleted, I do not receive a lot of them.

Yes, there is hypocrisy on both sides for those willing to see it.

I would like to suggest that each of us should try to moderate the voices from their own groups. If a poster (liberal or conservative) said to another participant that posted something extreme: �I agree with you that Person A is incorrect on Issue B because of reasons C and D, but I disagree with your suggesting that Person A is �Satan� and your making such a comparison only succeeds in getting people not to take what you post seriously�, such a poster would greatly bolster their position while both affirming their fellow poster�s position and showing that poster that the extremist elements of his expression are unacceptable in public discourse.

I would like to suggest that course of posting but I suspect that no one is really interested.

I do not wish to prohibit political discussions because I believe there is a great need for people of faith to be able to articulately express their opinions regarding politics in the public forum. Forums like this one are a good place to learn how to express such opinions. Also, I do not with to reinforce the popular idea that people of faith should not seek to be involved in the political process.

I wish every reader a good Fast.

Admin

That is even better than Eisenhower's comment. I would just add one point: it also reassures us that there would be help for those who need it.

Neil, very well put. Just because we are American citizens does not de facto place us automatically in support of an unjust and unnecessary war (the words of the Holy Father). I rather feel more comfortable looking more closely at the positions of my Church and prayerfully considering her words rather than embracing a partisan political philosophy. I have been personally attacked by both neoconservatives and liberals for my personal opinions, and so be it as those are matters of conscience.

And Stogjaniev, lest we never forget the Paschal bombing. Along with our rampant infanticide, supported by public funds in budgets which this President has signed, we have no business moralizing to the world.

Whatever can be said about causes and reasons for the war, Christians did not have their churches bombed and be forced into a mass exodus out of the country prior to this act of agression. The restoration caused from this period of destabilization will take many years to heal.

To his credit, President Yuschenko has publically stated the Ukrainian contingent will be out of Iraq soon and some units have already received their orders to start packing up. God bless him for protecting his troops.

Indeed people of faith should be involved in the political process as the Admin has well stated. Would that we do heed Our Holy Father and embrace the entire Christian message more closely in every public political action we take.

While I also disagree with our President on most issues, and did not vote for him, it does nothing to further meaningful dialogue with needless emotional polemic (i.e. calling someone Satan, or in reverse character assasinations for questioning the President's motives or actions, both of which have occurred here).

It not only detracts from the content and meaning of the discussion, but does not bode well overall for our general reputation as Christians who should be able to discuss any issue in charity.

I also wish everyone a prayerful and holy return from the exile of sin, passion, and enmity this Holy Fast. May we all rush, as the Prodigal, to the loving embrace of our Father.

Pani,

I thank you very much for your very thoughtful and Christlike post. We cannot compartmentalize our lives as though God is in one compartment and economics is in another. You have shown us an excellent path.

Dan L

The payment cut in scheduled benefits assumes that there is money in the social security trust fund. There is no money in the social security trust fund. It�s all been spent on other things. The social security trust fund consists of a bunch of unfunded IOUs.

President Bush is not the originator of the idea of allowing private investment within social security. In his 1998 State of the Union address President Clinton called social security a �crisis� and called for a scheme where individuals could invest part of their social security taxes in private accounts. Both Democrats and Republicans gave him a standing ovation for the idea.

The social security tax rate is 12.4% of a person�s salary. 6.2% of this comes from a direct deduction and the other 6.2% is hidden in the so-called employer contribution.

A person making $25,000 a year for 45 years (working from age 20 to age 60) will pay (40 years x $20,000 x 6.5% sstax) $62,000 in social security taxes. His employer will pay another $62,000 in social taxes for a total of $124,000. If he dies his family gets a tiny lump sum payment.

If this person were allowed to invest half of his taxes into a U.S. bonds (currently paying 4.5%) he would have approximately $230,000 in savings which he could withdraw during his retirement or leave to his children.

The example is not exact because people�s salaries do not stay the same for 45 years. A 20 year starting life today with a salary of $25,000 will probably see it increase to close to $100,000 before he retires (allowing for inflation adjustments and promotions, etc.).

In 1981 the employees of the City of Galveston, Texas opted out of social security. Data from First Financial Benefits, which administers the Galveston Alternate Plan, shows that county workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security. The program has seen return rates move from 3% to 14% but the program has never lost money and has averaged an 8% return. The lump sum death benefit for social security is $255. Under the Galveston Alternate Plan an employee who retired at a salary of $17,000 received a survivor�s benefit of $150,000 and whatever was in the reserve account (usually another $100,000).

Much can be done to improve social security. Allowing employees to invest and keep part of their own money is a start.

CJ,

I of course agree. I still think it is right to call our present system a scam. We need to change and/or scrap the system. The AARP of which I'm a member, ought to be ashamed of itself. I've written and told them so.

Dan L

Money is fungible. Big News.

Sort of.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/sotu.post/
The looming shortfall was seen as a problem to be given the higher priority (if you recall, priority over tax cuts) for the surplus. Unfortunately the surplus under Clinton disappeared quickly under his successor. Note, moreover that Clinton was not suggesting private accounts. He was instead suggesting that the trust fund monies be invested a little more aggresively, with some "small portion" invested in the private sector rather than in government notes. This is completely different than Bush's proposal to take money out of the system. Also note that the trust fund depletion date was 2032 in the projections then, and has moved to 2052 in the latest CCBO forecasts.

What you say about investments is obvious. But you seem unclear on the fundamental concept that SS is not an investment, a pension plan, an annuity. The money we put in is, for the most part, paying current recipients.

No one is prevented by social security from making such personal investments. Your hypothetical person can and should be making these investments, to provide for his retirement above the SS saftey net.

Your Galveston example, btw, is more what Clinton was talking about than Bush. The monies are pooled not handled privately. It is invested in at contracted rtes in financial instruments, not, for example, in riskier stocks; I am not sure what Bush's plan will allow or prohibit for the ostensibly "personal" investment.

Agreed.

How, exactly, will this help the beneficiaries in the present and near-term face the "crisis"? Or are you only interested in yourself?

I've always thought of the present SS program as a bit of a Ponzie or Pyrmid scheme; the only difference being that we don't have to go out and recruit new members-the government does it for us.
Maybe the best thing would be to allow people the option of choosing the present plan or a new plan such as the one the President has suggested.

I've always thought of the present SS program as a bit of a Ponzie or Pyrmid scheme; the only difference being that we don't have to go out and recruit new members-the government does it for us.
Maybe the best thing would be to allow people the option of choosing the present plan or a new plan such as the one the President has suggested.

David, How does your proposal secure Rose's disability payments in the face of the looming shortfall?

Dear Neil,

About President Bush starting a war on false pretenses, I am quoting a response by my grandson to a Democrat before the elections. That Democrat was responding in turn, to a stream of quotations pertaining to Iraq, that were made by Democrats prior to 911.

Zenovia

Dear Neil,

If you are referring to the political prisoners, I think you tend to forget that they have stated that their only wish was to kill Americans. Now I'm talking about those in Guatanamo. Our soldiers there are certainly risking their lives.

We also have to realize that these prisoners are the only means we have of obtaining information that might prevent mass murder.

Now I have a perfect solution. Instead of using means that are really abhorrent, in order to acquire information, what we should do is show people being blown up...body parts, blood, screams and all. Let these prisoners watch these videos day in and day out, and let them imagine them as being their mothers, sisters, brothers, children, father, etc.

I think that would bring them to their senses.

Zenovia

Dan you are so kind. But God is good!

I had to retire from the Post Office due to my health. When I started back in '81, everything fell under the Office of Personel Mangement and Social Security. So when they forced me to retire I had to draw my OPM and because of the way it is struckured I am also on Social Security, but somehow the system compliments each other, so neither is paying the full amount, but it is all drawn out of my retirement funds.

When my husband started with the Post Office in '85, he fell under a program called FERS or Federal Employee Retirement System. Now so much of his money goes to SS and so much of it is invested. The Post Office meets every dollar invested you invest up to a given point with a certain amount of money, kind of like matching funds thing. So employees hired after '87 pay into SS at a reduced amount and FERS. This is true of all federal agencies, now I am not certain if they all do the matching thing.

There are a number of different FERS plans to choose from. One allows you to move the stocks yourself, one is mutual funds investing, the other is allowing is investing in Government stuff or letting the government move it for you, don't exactly remember the details.

CJ explanied it very clearly. This is what the president is talking about. Not leaving SS out to dry, but allowing the younger folks a more flexable way of saving and garunteeing them retirement safety, while not leave the seniors without benefits. It will transition.

Pani Rose

CJ's remarks contained a fundamental error about the very nature of the social security system, erroneously conflated the Clinton and Bush proposals.

As to "leaving SS out to dry", please explain how taking money out of the system, for use in private accounts, does anything except exacerbate the near-term projected shortfalls. How will these private accounts secure disability and survivor benefits?

Encouraging more savings and investment, is laudable. But what Bush is doing is being done at the expense of the SS safety net. That is the problem.