If Bush Wins (Re)Election?

[Northgate]

What will happen during the next four years if George Bush and his chronies are (re)elected? What will the state of the nation be at the end of an eight year reign?

Will we invade another country like Iran or Syria?

Will we reinstate the draft?

What will be the state of affairs in Iraq? Civil war or tenuous stability?

How many of our soldiers will be dead and what will the dent be in our war chest?

Will will our national debt be after returning tax dollars to the top one percent?

What will the state of the environment be?

What will the unemployment rate be and what will the average hourly rate be?

Will hate be added to the constitution?

Will we see a dramatic move toward alternative fuels or more of the same?

What will be the state of Medicare, perscription drugs and a woman's right to choose?

Will our ports, chemical factories and nuclear power plants be more protected and less vulnerable to attack?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Northgate
What will happen during the next four years if George Bush and his chronies are (re)elected? What will the state of the nation be at the end of an eight year reign?

Will we invade another country like Iran or Syria?

Not a fullscale invasion; the troop strength is not there (yet)...we will conduct operations like selected bombing operations to 'behead' leaderships considered 'rogue', or nuclear facilities such as in Iran or North Korea

Will we reinstate the draft?

Without a doubt. Its been openly talked about, and Kerry referenced this a few days back.

What will be the state of affairs in Iraq? Civil war or tenuous stability?

According to recently published intelligence reports, civil war and chaos is the most likely outcome. The only party who could restore order there would be a 'strongman'. I read recently that Saddam Husseins lawyers are trying to get him on the ballot...

How many of our soldiers will be dead and what will the dent be in our war chest?

The occupation has cost some $200 billion in 18 months...in another 4 years, thats some $0.5 Trillion..and thats not counting materiel losses.
1040 soldiers dead in 18 months is possibly not accurate; soldiers who die in the field or shortly afterwards represent the bodycount. Soldiers who die of their injuries much later are not added to the death toll. How many more is unclear.

What will our national debt be after returning tax dollars to the top one percent?

Make that the top 0.5%......doesn't really make that much difference! National Debt? Huge, big, massive, and becoming more engorged...

What will the state of the environment be?

Polluters etc. are being held less accountable for their crimes under this administration, so expect a dirtier, more deforested, more dangerous and more toxic world under Bush,

What will the unemployment rate be and what will the average hourly rate be?

Unemployment figures will continue to be massaged. Fast food workers are now in "manufacturing". Janitors will be in the "engineering" profession. One thing you can count on...the huge pool of free labor in prisons will increase, and I would bet that these "jobs" will be added to the list of new employment opportunities and positions created under the Bush administration. :)

Re. the hourly rate? Lets just say it will not be keeping pace with the cost of living. Does it ever? Has it ever?

Will hate be added to the constitution?

How can you add hate to the Constitution? :wow: But just replace a moderate judge with a(nother) hardline redneck religious radical fundamentalist wacko in the Supreme Court.....and Constitutional decisions based on (at least) intolerance will be legion. Replacing two more moderate judges with Bush preferences and "hate" may well be an appropriate designation...

Will we see a dramatic move toward alternative fuels or more of the same?

Only fake ones, like that $2billion H2 initiative that Bush was touting a few years back. It is easier to extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons (read fossils fuels), than water...a boondoggle for the oil industry, in disguise.

What will be the state of Medicare, perscription drugs

Probably privatized, or partially so.....prescription drugs costs rocketing skywards

and a woman's right to choose?

Given a severe bias of rightwing Supreme Court judges, and the right's philosophy of taking government out of the work place and planting it firmly in your home and personal life, there is a good chance of Roe vs Wade of being overturned, and a return to prohibition, and a thriving black market.

Will our ports, chemical factories and nuclear power plants be more protected and less vulnerable to attack?

There has been abject failure so far to implement security at ports and facilities dealing with dangerous materials. Whats the reason for this extraordinary (on the surface) state of affairs:
(1) Rampant incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility on a criminal scale?
(2) The threat of terrorism is a phoney creation of this administration, to keep Americans in a state of fear, using Cheney's grotesque "9-11 Spectacular" as a perpetual reminder. The administration, knowing the reality that terrorism is so unlikely or rare, feel that spending money on beefing up security in ports, nuke and chemical facilities is unnecessary?
(3) Or...they have far better things to do, like harrassing political activists such as the former Cat Stevens. after all...imagine the horrific consequences of subjecting the American people to an endless barrage of "Morning has Broken" or "Peace Train"

:wow:

[THT]

What will happen during the next four years if George Bush and his chronies are (re)elected?

Stagnating economy due to deficits being to high.

What will the state of the nation be at the end of an eight year reign?

Exhausted.

Will we invade another country like Iran or Syria?

No.

Will we reinstate the draft?

No.

What will be the state of affairs in Iraq? Civil war or tenuous stability?

It's easier to predict chaos then stability. Who knows.

How many of our soldiers will be dead and what will the dent be in our war chest?

Guess: $300G over the term, 2 fatalities/day average

Iraq could be successful I think, but it'll take a decade, lots of billions of dollars and tremendous patience and sacrifice, but stubborness has it advantages. Bush will sway to the political winds though because I think Rove has learned that something like this is uncontrollable and unpredictable, and therefore can't easily be taken advantage of for politics.

Will will our national debt be after returning tax dollars to the top one percent?

~3% of GDP in 2008. Maybe $800G by 2008.

What will the state of the environment be?

Well, changed. Don't think GWB has much control over this. The expansion of humanity itself will change the environment regardless of our actions. The global weather will be more violent due to added energy into the system.

More companies will likely get passes, "the right to police themselves", on cleaning up their environmental messes, so certain sites will be dangerous.

What will the unemployment rate be and what will the average hourly rate be?

5.5% unemployment on average. Hourly wage will only match 75% of inflation.

Will hate be added to the constitution?

You mean God?

Will we see a dramatic move toward alternative fuels or more of the same?

More of the same. Overall usage of energy will have same linear trend. The $200G going into Iraq could have easily went into energy infrastructure.

What will be the state of Medicare, perscription drugs and a woman's right to choose?

When Ginsburg goes, an anti-abortion bill will pass. Prescription drug companies will make more money at the expanse of taxpayers. Medicare will get more expensive.

Will our ports, chemical factories and nuclear power plants be more protected and less vulnerable to attack?

It will be the same as it is now. The only way it becomes less vulnerable is through some crony capitalist action.

[MarcUK]

I WANT GEORGIE TO WIN.

Every dumb fucker Republican needs to have forced down their throats, that they voted for the most failed man in modern politics. Which will be perfectly clear in 4 years time. And they will be held responsible.

This dumb fucking administration needs to be held fully responsible for thir actions, and the world will make it clear, and Rebublicans will be clear that George W Bush and his Administration were the most corrupt, vile politicians in modern history.

Then we can start again.

I want George to win.

[Towel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I WANT GEORGIE TO WIN.

Every dumb fucker Republican needs to have forced down their throats, that they voted for the most failed man in modern politics. Which will be perfectly clear in 4 years time. And they will be held responsible.

This dumb fucking administration needs to be held fully responsible for thir actions, and the world will make it clear, and Rebublicans will be clear that George W Bush and his Administration were the most corrupt, vile politicians in modern history.

Then we can start again.

I want George to win. Easy for you to say, being over there in the UK. We'd have to actually live with him while his supporters get their eddicashun.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by THT


It's easier to predict chaos then stability. Who knows.


interesting theory, I'd say that it's easier to predict stability, since you want things to be stable, to work out alright, and for everything to be dandy, but things don't always work out as planned.

ultimately, I'd say it's a lot easier to make a mess than to clean one up.

[faust9]

A picture's worth a thousand words:

http://www1.appstate.edu/~gravettsl/images/lucifer.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~skreee/index/pictures/hell.jpg

[Aquatic]

Well, changed. Don't think GWB has much control over this.

No. Sure Congress has as much a hand or greater, but aren't you forgetting who heads the EPA? That's right! The Executive branch. And thanks to President FuckTheHumanRace and the Plant, companies and their personnel now control the EPA and its policies. How bout that "Roadless" act.

It seems like a lot of intelligent and even liberal people here don't have a clue about the environment and environmental politics. So for average Americans... :\ "TMDL? Carrying capacity? Hey buddy I eat at McDonald's every day and I can't walk my fat fucking ass to the recycling bin because I'm fat so I'll just throw my bottles in the trash because I'm a fat American with fat in between my ears." :(

If Bush wins I move to Canada.

[Ra]

No one knows what will happen if Bush wins the election. In 2000 almost everything he said he has gone back on. For example, he said repeatedly that gay marriage should be left up to the states, but now he wants an amendment? No one knows what will happen... he's already shown you can't believe what he says during a campaign.

[Xool]

Originally posted by Aquatic
If Bush wins I move to Canada.

You're not the only one considering this... and seriously! I've also thought about Europe, Rome or Zurich perhaps?

[SDW2001]

You guys are hysterical. You really are.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It's an unarguable fact that anywhere else in the world John Kerry would be regarded as a centre-right politician. You look at some forums on the internet and it's like the guy's the heir apparent to Stalin. SDW2001 calls his positions 'indefensible' on this very forum.

Anyway. George Bush will win this election, of course he will.

What should really worry Americans is that moderate voices will continue to be painted as extreme. I expect the centre of the American body politic will be shifted further to the right. I expect someone will have the bright idea of giving the Department of Homeland Security or some new or existing body its own plain-clothes enforcement force. I expect unaccountable bodies like the people who make up the 'no fly' lists (JESUS CHRIST: THERE IS ALREADY A BODY THAT RESTRICTS THE MOVEMENTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS! FUCK.) will become more common and will extend their remit to public appointments and democratic institutions—the precedent's been set now, for the first time in American history, and I absolutely, seriously expect it to continue.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Ra
No one knows what will happen if Bush wins the election. In 2000 almost everything he said he has gone back on. For example, he said repeatedly that gay marriage should be left up to the states, but now he wants an amendment?

That was the world before 911. 911 changed everything. Just like Bush realised that containment of Saddam and his WoMDs wasn´t good enough now he had attacked US on its own soil, he also realised that gay marriage couldn´t be tolerated because it can explode in your face. Get up to date man!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You guys are hysterical. You really are.


Nope. You're just in denial ( again ).:rolleyes:

[Giaguara]

if ..

in 4 years: you will get 4 $ with 1 euro.

and there will be 15 million americans living in ireland. meh .. :lol:

[Anders]

Originally posted by Giaguara
if ..

in 4 years: you will get 4 $ with 1 euro.


Then I can buy a iPod with two hours work. WOOHOO

[madmax559]

actually it will be a very exciting time..

marx did say we would slowly slide into the abyss as it
were

1.i do expect a draft

2.i fully expect us to launch a nuke at someone
within the next 5 years, making us the only country
to have ever used nukes..again

3.as homeland security slowly exerts more control
expect to see researchers & free thinkers quietly make their way to other countries

#3 would be the most troubling beacuse at that point
you are loosing your best brainpower

btw did anyone catch the episode on the history channel
last week ? children of the reich ?
if not, see it its superb

[jamac]

1) The podium on the whitehouse lawn will be reconstructed so Rush Limbaugh can blow Bush while he is giving press conferences.

2) The microphones used at presidential speeches will be connected to a speech synthesizer to make the president sound intelligent (very secret new technology was not expected to be developed until 3262)

3) 52% of the US will be renamed into "Canada" and the rest will be called "Neverland".

4) The constitution will be changed to include: "Citizens may only masturbate with their left hands under God!"

5) Bushs will revolt and want to be called "small trees".

6) Diesel fumes will be considered by the FDA as a cure for overpopulation.

7) George W. will be changed to "Genius W."

[jamac]

8) And this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Nope. You're just in denial ( again ).:rolleyes:

I'm a little unclear about what I'm in denial about. The fact is that Bush is in very good shape for the election and Kerry is in very bad shape. Just about everyone agrees with this, regardless of whom he/she supports.

As for what Bush has done and what he will do, well it's pretty obvious we're not going to agree about that. But denial ? That's pretty funny coming from the man that can't see how screwed Kerry is right now.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Edit- my bad, Kerry's totally screwed, SDW's quite right.

What a disgrace. :)

[faust9]

This (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=584931&section=news) is a prelude to another four years of Bush.

[New]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's an unarguable fact that anywhere else in the world John Kerry would be regarded as a centre-right politician. You look at some forums on the internet and it's like the guy's the heir apparent to Stalin. SDW2001 calls his positions 'indefensible' on this very forum.

Anyway. George Bush will win this election, of course he will.

What should really worry Americans is that moderate voices will continue to be painted as extreme. I expect the centre of the American body politic will be shifted further to the right. I expect someone will have the bright idea of giving the Department of Homeland Security or some new or existing body its own plain-clothes enforcement force. I expect unaccountable bodies like the people who make up the 'no fly' lists (JESUS CHRIST: THERE IS ALREADY A BODY THAT RESTRICTS THE MOVEMENTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS! FUCK.) will become more common and will extend their remit to public appointments and democratic institutions—the precedent's been set now, for the first time in American history, and I absolutely, seriously expect it to continue.

In most places even Nader would be considered a moderate.

[Stoo]

.i fully expect us to launch a nuke at someone
within the next 5 years, making us the only country
to have ever used nukes..again

Aw come on, it'll just be a tiny one.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm a little unclear about what I'm in denial about. The fact is that Bush is in very good shape for the election and Kerry is in very bad shape. Just about everyone agrees with this, regardless of whom he/she supports.

As for what Bush has done and what he will do, well it's pretty obvious we're not going to agree about that. But denial ? That's pretty funny coming from the man that can't see how screwed Kerry is right now.


Sorry but this just isn't the case at all. Last time I looked it was still a very tight race. But, as always you see things from RDF perspective.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

[THT]

Originally posted by Aquatic
No. Sure Congress has as much a hand or greater, but aren't you forgetting who heads the EPA? That's right! The Executive branch. And thanks to President FuckTheHumanRace and the Plant, companies and their personnel now control the EPA and its policies. How bout that "Roadless" act.

The environment will not stay the same as it is now unless the human population is controlled. I know full well that GWB will let big business take "care" of environment, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't going to slow down the impending loss of nature around us because humanity is growing outward. We're not going to stop that unless we decrease population, and that isn't going to happen.

As far as the quality of the air, water and dirt, yeah, I think gov't can control that, but I've already said GWB will let big business do the "taking care of" instead of real regulations.

[Neø]

Hmmm....looks like a lemming syndrome here....:lol: :lol: :lol:

i mean you guys believe everything Kerry says and what if he tells you guys to commit mass suicide? are you gonna all die? come on, stop being so negative...i'm an optimist and you should be too :)...try it, you will like it8)

-Neø:)

[THT]

Originally posted by Neø
i mean you guys believe everything Kerry says and what if he tells you guys to commit mass suicide? are you gonna all die? come on, stop being so negative...i'm an optimist and you should be too :)...try it, you will like it8)

I am an optimist. However, you are fooling yourself to believe GWB and to give him and his cronies your support. They have played you for a fool along with everyone else. They do not care about you one single wit. They do not care about your principles nor deign to follow the principles they themselves espouse, to which you apparently subscribe to.

Think about this. They did not trust you nor the public at large to tell the truth of their plans on any facet of public life. I've had enough. The single best reason I am going to vote Kerry is that he has a conscience and some semblance for the public good. GWB has none.

[Aquatic]

SDW are kidding me? You think I'm joking? You are the reason I am leaving. A country full of assclowns. Are you telling me and Xool that we can't leave America?

Xool Canada is closer. Of course, if you like warm weather, probably not as nice. ;) Me, I likes my skiing, and Montréal. Too bad I took Spanish.:\

I am worried somehow Dubya will win now. I don't know how he did it. I mean it's the economy stupid. His environmental damage and wasteful spending, Middle East tinkering, Social Security and Medicare mess ups will be felt for at least half a century. He is possibly the worst President ever. Worse than Coolidge. Worse than Nixon. Worse than even...Reagan. Ouch. At least Reagan didn't kill 1,000 Americans in cold blood.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
SDW are kidding me? You think I'm joking? You are the reason I am leaving. A country full of assclowns. Are you telling me and Xool that we can't leave America?

Xool Canada is closer. Of course, if you like warm weather, probably not as nice. ;) Me, I likes my skiing, and Montréal. Too bad I took Spanish.:\

I am worried somehow Dubya will win now. I don't know how he did it. I mean it's the economy stupid. His environmental damage and wasteful spending, Middle East tinkering, Social Security and Medicare mess ups will be felt for at least half a century. He is possibly the worst President ever. Worse than Coolidge. Worse than Nixon. Worse than even...Reagan. Ouch. At least Reagan didn't kill 1,000 Americans in cold blood.

Or maybe the rest of the country doesn't live in your delusional little world where 5.4% is a "stupid economy." Maybe Clinton was dealing with Iraq via missles a couple times a yearand dealing with North Korea as well. (In addition to Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, the Middle East, etc...) Maybe the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S.S. Cole, etc all still happened. Maybe more people realize that Social Security is a clusterfuck of a pyramid scheme that is going to be broken no matter who claims to fix it.

But go to Canada and enjoy yourself. You are always welcome to discover if the grass is greener. Tell me where I can send the housewarming gift.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

psst, trumptman. the deficit.

Anyway. Aquatic, come and crash at my mine while your country goes down the toilet.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
psst, trumptman. the deficit.

Anyway. Aquatic, come and crash at my mine while your country goes down the toilet.

Are you claiming that Canada doesn't have a national debt?

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
Are you claiming that Canada doesn't have a national debt?

Nick
Nothing compared to yours, no.

But let's get back on topic.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Neø
Hmmm....looks like a lemming syndrome here....:lol: :lol: :lol:

i mean you guys believe everything Kerry says and what if he tells you guys to commit mass suicide? are you gonna all die? come on, stop being so negative...i'm an optimist and you should be too :)...try it, you will like it8)

-Neø:)

hey ditto-head-

you don't happen to have the link to the show where Rush talked about that mass-suicide article written by the student from GWU do you? He called in to the show the next day and I happened to be listening, I want to get the background on it...

Thanks...

-Paul

[jimmac]

Originally posted by THT
I am an optimist. However, you are fooling yourself to believe GWB and to give him and his cronies your support. They have played you for a fool along with everyone else. They do not care about you one single wit. They do not care about your principles nor deign to follow the principles they themselves espouse, to which you apparently subscribe to.

Think about this. They did not trust you nor the public at large to tell the truth of their plans on any facet of public life. I've had enough. The single best reason I am going to vote Kerry is that he has a conscience and some semblance for the public good. GWB has none.


Yup! Played them like a puppet.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Or maybe the rest of the country doesn't live in your delusional little world where 5.4% is a "stupid economy." Maybe Clinton was dealing with Iraq via missles a couple times a yearand dealing with North Korea as well. (In addition to Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, the Middle East, etc...) Maybe the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S.S. Cole, etc all still happened. Maybe more people realize that Social Security is a clusterfuck of a pyramid scheme that is going to be broken no matter who claims to fix it.

But go to Canada and enjoy yourself. You are always welcome to discover if the grass is greener. Tell me where I can send the housewarming gift.

Nick

The bigger picture over the years just doesn't reflect that.:no:

With the exception of SS. But it wasn't a pyramid scheme. It was just terribly mismanaged.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
The bigger picture over the years just doesn't reflect that.:no:

With the exception of SS. But it wasn't a pyramid scheme. It was just terribly mismanaged.

Social Security assumed a pyramid. It is pay as you go.

As for your assertion that the bigger picture doesn't reflect that...thanks for sharing your opinion.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Social Security assumed a pyramid. It is pay as you go.

As for your assertion that the bigger picture doesn't reflect that...thanks for sharing your opinion.

Nick

And thanks for sharing yours!;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but this just isn't the case at all. Last time I looked it was still a very tight race. But, as always you see things from RDF perspective.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

jimmac,

Please tell me you're just being intellectually dishonest as opposed to blind and/or stupid. Please.

We have to use polling averages. We also have to look at battleground states and their trends. According to averages, Bush is up with a solid and moderate lead. Bush's picture improves greatly when we look at the battleground states. Kerry has stopped advertising in several key and former battleground states because he/they know he's not going to win them.

In the "real" battleground states, the trend is Bush. Bush can lose PA and still win, but Kerry cannot. Previosuly, Bush was down by as much a 7 points in PA. He's now up by a point or two. That's not a 1 or 2 point shift. That's an EIGHT to NINE point shift. In FL, the race is very tight. I still see Bush taking Florida, but that's just my opinion, so I won't try and back it further.

As I've said, the reason Kerry is going to lose, though, is the states that are NOT battlegrounds. Bush is very, very close to Kerry in NJ and NY, and that just shouldn't be. How do you respond to this? It's a statistical dead heat in NJ and it's within five or six in NY. This is the part where I remind you that Gore won NY in a narrow race nationally.....and won it by 25 points. How is that this race is so tight when Bush is within five in NY?

Bush could still lose. Sometimes the polls are wrong. But, there is no reason to think so according to any mathmatical standard at this point. I have no problem with you disagreeing, but saying I'm in denial really doesn't make sense according to the polling situatation.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Social Security assumed a pyramid. It is pay as you go.

As for your assertion that the bigger picture doesn't reflect that...thanks for sharing your opinion.

Nick Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Current workers pay for current retirees. When there's an excess of retirees or not enough current workers, as will happen in our generation, you make adjustments to benefits and/or taxes. That's not a pyramid scheme.

[Paul]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush can lose PA and still win, but Kerry cannot. Previosuly, Bush was down by as much a 7 points in PA. He's now up by a point or two. That's not a 1 or 2 point shift. That's an EIGHT to NINE point shift. In FL, the race is very tight. I still see Bush taking Florida, but that's just my opinion, so I won't try and back it further.
That bit about penn is true:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/pennsylvania.png
Kerry needs penn to win, no doubt. But Bush needs ohio to win, IE if Bush loses ohio, game over.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/ohio.png
ohio has been trending bush, but still within the margin of error...
and yes florida is marginally within bush's camp, but Kerry can lose florida and still win
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/florida.png
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/state-graphs.html (updated daily-except for this weekend)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/legend.png

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Current workers pay for current retirees. When there's an excess of retirees or not enough current workers, as will happen in our generation, you make adjustments to benefits and/or taxes. That's not a pyramid scheme.

What else do you call a system in which the initial recipients get much more than their investment in returns and the very large number of people at the end not only don't get their invested money, but get nothing at all?

We can argument semantics about it all day long but the reality is that a very, very large number of people have now paid in, and will realize that there is no one further down the line to support the pyramid. If it were not a pyramid, it would be sustainable as long as the ratio of retirees to workers was at least one to one. (One investing into the fund so that one may later withdraw from the fund) The reality is that just isn't true.

From the Social Security Administration's own website...

SSA-FAQs (http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm)

Q.


I hear that Social Security has a big financial problem? Why?

A.


Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

Q.


What will happen if Social Security is not changed?

A.


If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate). See the Trustees Report

Q.


How big is the future problem?

A.


Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period.

Social Security's Chief Actuary projects that in present-value dollars the total net Social Security cash flow for years 2004 through 2078 is projected to be nearly -$5.2 trillion. When the trust fund balances of $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004 are added to this value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) for the 75-year period of $3.7 trillion. This unfunded obligation indicates that if an additional $3.7 trillion had been added to the trust fund at the beginning of 2004, the program would have had adequate financing to meet the projected cost of benefits scheduled in current law over the next 75 years. See the Trustees Report

Nick

[New]

Back on topic,

If Bush wins again, the US is in danger of removing itself from the western world. I'm serious. You're loosing your democratic rights. You're run by fanatics. But some of you are so blind you'll defend anything, like Scott who defended the deportation of Cat Stevens even though it turned out to be a mixup of names... It's frightening...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by New
Back on topic,

If Bush wins again, the US is in danger of removing itself from the western world. I'm serious. You're loosing your democratic rights. You're run by fanatics. But some of you are so blind you'll defend anything, like Scott who defended the deportation of Cat Stevens even though it turned out to be a mixup of names... It's frightening...

Yep, why can't we just show tolerance like the French with the headscarves in schools...

Nick

[Placebo]

Well, the positive aspect of Bush winning the next election is that he can only be in for that year.



Unless he gets Congress to unanimously vote to make the US a monarchy.

[New]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yep, why can't we just show tolerance like the French with the headscarves in schools...

Nick

I don't agree with the Hijab law. But the law in itself was made partially to hinder gender oppression in the french muslem community and partially to secure the secular status of french schools. The debate on the law in france was very intense, and (in french tradition) the final word is probably not said even though the law was passed. French AI members might have something to add...

Still France is a not run by a religious nutcase president, just an asshole.

You obviously have very little knowledge on religious and political freedom in Europe.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Placebo
Well, the positive aspect of Bush winning the next election is that he can only be in for that year.



Unless he gets Congress to unanimously vote to make the US a monarchy.


While I don't believe that will happen, I could imagine (at least) scott defending it.

[New]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
While I don't believe that will happen, I could imagine (at least) scott defending it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
While I don't believe that will happen, I could imagine (at least) scott defending it.
Oh, c'mon, trumptman would go for it, too, albeit anonymously...

[sammi jo]

Here's what might happen:

In the days leading up to the election, the Homeland Security Department will put out (yet another) phoney terrorist scare, warning that "Al Qaeda" will target polling stations on election day. This will result in a low voter turn out, which is statistically advantageous to Conservatives.

If by some extraordinary and unlikely turn of events Kerry wins by a small margin in November, BushCorp will raise hell claiming the DREs (electronic touch screen voting machines) were fraudulently programmed and set up. Unless Kerry wins by a large enough margin to be statistically a certainty, BushCorp will not concede the White House, and will pull any stunt imaginable (and unimaginable) to stay there.

If Bush wins, which I expect to be about 5% in the popular vote, then expect DREs to be declared the greatest advance in the democratic process since Simon de Montford.

[Towel]

Originally posted by sammi jo
If Bush wins, which I expect to be about 5% in the popular vote, then expect DREs to be declared the greatest advance in the democratic process since Simon de Montford. DRE = Digitally Rigged Election?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,

Please tell me you're just being intellectually dishonest as opposed to blind and/or stupid. Please.

We have to use polling averages. We also have to look at battleground states and their trends. According to averages, Bush is up with a solid and moderate lead. Bush's picture improves greatly when we look at the battleground states. Kerry has stopped advertising in several key and former battleground states because he/they know he's not going to win them.

In the "real" battleground states, the trend is Bush. Bush can lose PA and still win, but Kerry cannot. Previosuly, Bush was down by as much a 7 points in PA. He's now up by a point or two. That's not a 1 or 2 point shift. That's an EIGHT to NINE point shift. In FL, the race is very tight. I still see Bush taking Florida, but that's just my opinion, so I won't try and back it further.

As I've said, the reason Kerry is going to lose, though, is the states that are NOT battlegrounds. Bush is very, very close to Kerry in NJ and NY, and that just shouldn't be. How do you respond to this? It's a statistical dead heat in NJ and it's within five or six in NY. This is the part where I remind you that Gore won NY in a narrow race nationally.....and won it by 25 points. How is that this race is so tight when Bush is within five in NY?

Bush could still lose. Sometimes the polls are wrong. But, there is no reason to think so according to any mathmatical standard at this point. I have no problem with you disagreeing, but saying I'm in denial really doesn't make sense according to the polling situatation.



Yeah, yeah, yeah......



Well a little over a year ago you were predicting Bush would win all 50 states!:lol:

Another example indicative of your power to forsee events no doubt.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah, yeah, yeah......



Well a little over a year ago you were predicting Bush would win all 50 states!:lol:

Another example indicative of your power to forsee events no doubt.;)

I didn't predict it. I said it was possible. At the time, it certainly was. No one is his right mind would think that now. Nice cheapshot, though....and nice job avoiding the issue. Sounds like....yes.....DENIAL to me.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I didn't predict it. I said it was possible. At the time, it certainly was. No one is his right mind would think that now. Nice cheapshot, though....and nice job avoiding the issue. Sounds like....yes.....DENIAL to me.


Yes it was a real cheap shot.;)

[rageous]

The people who choose to vote for Bush despite all threads posted in PO telling them how dumb they are for doing so are no more blind than the Kerry voters that are voting for him just to get rid of Bush.

So it's a wash.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by New
I don't agree with the Hijab law. But the law in itself was made partially to hinder gender oppression in the french muslem community and partially to secure the secular status of french schools. The debate on the law in france was very intense, and (in french tradition) the final word is probably not said even though the law was passed. French AI members might have something to add...

Still France is a not run by a religious nutcase president, just an asshole.

You obviously have very little knowledge on religious and political freedom in Europe.

I have the knowlege to know when something is right or wrong and when it represents freedom vs. repression.

The point is that when France makes a bad decision and you hope they will work it out over the long run, you don't start declaring them in danger of heading back to the dark ages. You have done this with the United States. Your characterization of the United States doesn't just reflect little knowlege it reflects a desire to use the same criteria to point at an entirely different result. The example with Cat Stevens was a mix-up as even you noted. The headscarve issue isn't even a mix-up, it is straight up religious repression.

Cat Stevens can have the mix-up fixed, turn right around and jump on a different plane and be back in the U.S. When are French schools going to stop repressing Muslims?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Placebo
Oh, c'mon, trumptman would go for it, too, albeit anonymously...

Authoritarian governments are much more popular with the left. You know Russia, Cuba, China...

and I bet you wouldn't mind the purge afterward either of a few million people who didn't happen to think just like you.

You must love Big Brother.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
What else do you call a system in which the initial recipients get much more than their investment in returns and the very large number of people at the end not only don't get their invested money, but get nothing at all?

Why do you lie?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
What else do you call a system in which the initial recipients get much more than their investment in returns and the very large number of people at the end not only don't get their invested money, but get nothing at all?

We can argument semantics about it all day long but the reality is that a very, very large number of people have now paid in, and will realize that there is no one further down the line to support the pyramid. If it were not a pyramid, it would be sustainable as long as the ratio of retirees to workers was at least one to one. (One investing into the fund so that one may later withdraw from the fund) The reality is that just isn't true. The problem lies in thinking about your social security taxes as an "investment." It's not an investment, it's a tax that you as a worker pay to make sure people who are retired don't go into poverty.

The problem I have with calling it a "pyramid scheme" is that it makes it seem like social security must fail by definition. Social security doesn't have to fail, you just have to match the benefits to the taxes paid. Of course people are living longer, and there's a baby boom generation to pay for. So you increase the payroll taxes and/or you reduce benefits. It's not that hard to fix, it just takes political will.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Why do you lie?

Why do you make false allegations?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
The problem lies in thinking about your social security taxes as an "investment." It's not an investment, it's a tax that you as a worker pay to make sure people who are retired don't go into poverty.

The problem I have with calling it a "pyramid scheme" is that it makes it seem like social security must fail by definition. Social security doesn't have to fail, you just have to match the benefits to the taxes paid. Of course people are living longer, and there's a baby boom generation to pay for. So you increase the payroll taxes and/or you reduce benefits. It's not that hard to fix, it just takes political will.

It "fails" because when you reduce the benefit to the point that it no longer serves it's intended purpose then it is done regardless of what we want to call it. Also while not an investment that you get to own or keep, it is something to which you contribute and expect a certain payout as a result of having paid into it. It is a social promise. The promise not being kept is defined as failing in my book.

Did you read the information I posted? The rate for SS needs to rise to a 18.3% contribution and that of course assumes that every penny the government has borrowed is paid back. How likely is that when our government is trillions in the red? You are talking about raising taxes enough to pay back those trillions, plus fund the future obligation. You are talking about "finding" an additional $12 trillion or so dollars all being taken from fewer and fewer people since there are fewer payees per person receiving than in the past.

That is a little more than political will. That is a future of broken promises and tax revolts because of a reverse transfer of generational wealth. No future kid is going to consent to a 20-25+% Social Security tax while paying down record student and credit card loans so Grandma and Grandpa can avoid having to pay for their prescription drugs and retire in style.

But the point of course was that the Baby Boom generation already consenting to having THEIR Social Security taxes increased to avoid the system going bankrupt and still receive the same contribution. When we see the broken promise there, and they want 33-50% more from the next genration to break yet another promise, it is going to come apart. I really don't care what word we call that.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
Authoritarian governments are much more popular with the left. You know Russia, Cuba, China...

Nick
Which explains why successive left-wing governments in America did so much for Pinochet, apartheid South Africa, Nicuragua, Mocambique, the Shah of Iran...

Yeah, they disappear people, torture them, don't hold elections, whatever: but hey. They're not communists.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Oh yeah, and how could I forget. Donald Rumsfeld doing business with the beardie guy.

Hey, he gasses his own people and puts dissidents in paper shredders: but at least he's killing thousands of Iranians!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh yeah, and how could I forget. Donald Rumsfeld doing business with the beardie guy.

Hey, he gasses his own people and puts dissidents in paper shredders: but at least he's killing thousands of Iranians!

Or better still, spending the whole 90's starving his people while doing billions worth of business in Europe under the supposed Oil for Food program...

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
Or better still, spending the whole 90's starving his people while doing billions worth of business in Europe under the supposed Oil for Food program...
You made the accusation that left-leaning people like authoritarian regimes. I responded by showing you how right-leaning governments in America can't get enough of them.

Then you change the subject.

An excellent technique, and I'll be sure to use it soon.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

"Meredith, must you slam the car door like that?"
"But Frank, you just slammed the car door!"
"WHY DON'T YOU EVER DO THE WASHING UP?"

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You made the accusation that left-leaning people like authoritarian regimes. I responded by showing you how right-leaning governments in America can't get enough of them.

Then you change the subject.

An excellent technique, and I'll be sure to use it soon.

Actually look again at what you wrote...

Which explains why successive left-wing governments in America did so much for Pinochet, apartheid South Africa, Nicuragua, Mocambique, the Shah of Iran...

I couldn't quite tell if you were trying to be sarcastic, just meant it as a quip, or what... so I just left it alone.

Nick

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Or maybe the rest of the country doesn't live in your delusional little world where 5.4% is a "stupid economy." Maybe Clinton was dealing with Iraq via missles a couple times a yearand dealing with North Korea as well. (In addition to Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, the Middle East, etc...) Maybe the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S.S. Cole, etc all still happened. Maybe more people realize that Social Security is a clusterfuck of a pyramid scheme that is going to be broken no matter who claims to fix it.

But go to Canada and enjoy yourself. You are always welcome to discover if the grass is greener. Tell me where I can send the housewarming gift.

Nick

I noticed you conveniently left out Clinton's extremely successful removal of an evil genocidal dictator and changed regimes -- all without leaving that country in completely and utter chaos...Yugoslavia.

[New]

Originally posted by trumptman
I have the knowlege to know when something is right or wrong and when it represents freedom vs. repression.

The point is that when France makes a bad decision and you hope they will work it out over the long run, you don't start declaring them in danger of heading back to the dark ages. You have done this with the United States. Your characterization of the United States doesn't just reflect little knowlege it reflects a desire to use the same criteria to point at an entirely different result. The example with Cat Stevens was a mix-up as even you noted. The headscarve issue isn't even a mix-up, it is straight up religious repression.

Cat Stevens can have the mix-up fixed, turn right around and jump on a different plane and be back in the U.S. When are French schools going to stop repressing Muslims?

Nick

I'm not talking about one example of bad politics, I'm talking about a genral change of direction that the US has taken.

My point was that you some of guys are so blind you even defended something that just turned out to be a mix-up. I have no need to defend the hijab-law. I disagree with it, but I don't see it as a threath to any of my rights.
You seem incapable of even a single instance of criticism of your "god-chosen" president.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Northgate
I noticed you conveniently left out Clinton's extremely successful removal of an evil genocidal dictator and changed regimes -- all without leaving that country in completely and utter chaos...Yugoslavia.

Oh you mean that action where Clinton started actig without U.N. support? Why would I mention that action, I'm sure by your reasoning, it was probably illegal.:no:

Nick

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Oh you mean that action where Clinton started actig without U.N. support? Why would I mention that action, I'm sure by your reasoning, it was probably illegal.:no:

Nick

So you supported Clinton's regime change in Yugoslavia? Fantastic. Yugoslav's are enjoying peace and freedom while watching Slobo's Haig trial. I believe their electricity is on 24/7. Fresh water too. No American's being beheaded either.

Clinton's war in Yugoslavia was a master stroke of political prowess, resolve, and nation building.

[Northgate]

What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term? One word: scandal.

Don't believe me? Consider the highlight reel of reelected presidents over the past 50 years. Ike won a second term and watched in dismay as his chief of staff was forced to resign over a vicuña coat. Richard Nixon buried George McGovern in 1972 and then resigned a year and a half later when Watergate finally caught up to him. Ronald Reagan sweated out his second term wondering if he'd be impeached over Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton didn't have to wonder: Two years after his reelection, he was defending himself in the first impeachment trial in over a century.

Coincidence? Don't believe it. There are three good reasons to think that second terms naturally lend themselves to scandal, and George Bush is almost preternaturally vulnerable to every one of them. Let's count them off.

First, power corrupts. It's a truism that as leaders become used to the idea that no one can really hold them to account, they increasingly push the envelope of acceptable behavior and eventually push too far. Not just in America, but in practically every democracy, this inevitably leads to abuses of power that eventually turn into scandals both small and large.

[More...]

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.drum.html)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I didn't predict it. I said it was possible. At the time, it certainly was. No one is his right mind would think that now. Nice cheapshot, though....and nice job avoiding the issue. Sounds like....yes.....DENIAL to me.


For an example :

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/?GT1=5100


Notice it says " close " not " landslide " or " shoe in ".

I can understand your wishful thinking but the fat lady hasn't begun to sing just yet.


OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
For an example :

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/?GT1=5100


Notice it says " close " not " landslide " or " shoe in ".

I can understand your wishful thinking but the fat lady hasn't begun to sing just yet.


OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

Slate? HAHAHAHAHA

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Slate? HAHAHAHAHA


Oh of course my source was bad for you again. I forgot you only accept news and polling sites authorized by religious, right wing, republican, Bushwackers!

:no: :rolleyes: :lol:


Oh by the way......

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Ra
No one knows what will happen if Bush wins the election. In 2000 almost everything he said he has gone back on. For example, he said repeatedly that gay marriage should be left up to the states, but now he wants an amendment? No one knows what will happen... he's already shown you can't believe what he says during a campaign. Wrong. He followed through on 50% of his campaign promises. If you voted for him for his tax cut stance - you should be very happy.

[Towel]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Wrong. He followed through on 50% of his campaign promises. If you voted for him for his tax cut stance - you should be very happy. I'll say many things about Bush, most of them bad. But I'll never say you can't count on the man to deliver on tax cuts. Nothing, and I mean nothing will stand between him and a tax cut.

[Ra]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Wrong. He followed through on 50% of his campaign promises. If you voted for him for his tax cut stance - you should be very happy.
My point is how are we supposed to know which "campaign promises" he intends to keep? If the man has differing views than my own, and he's honest, that's fine. At least we know what's going to happen. But I honestly have a hard time believing anything he says this time around.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Ra
My point is how are we supposed to know which "campaign promises" he intends to keep? If the man has differing views than my own, and he's honest, that's fine. At least we know what's going to happen. But I honestly have a hard time believing anything he says this time around.

And the larger point is that you can't pick and choose which campaign promises to buy into from ANY CANDIDATE.

They'll all shoot off to the mouth and tell you they can give you everything you want. But come election they can't deliver on everything. There is too much partisanship for that in the house and senate.

No president will EVER deliver on everything they campaign on. It's impossible.

[Ra]

No, I think if a candidate promises to do something - raise/lower taxes/benefits, yadda yadda - you have to be weary. Not just because they might not keep their word, but also because there are other factors at play. LIke how Bush said he supported extending the assault weapons ban, but it didn't make it through Congress. Fine. Those things happen. Of if he promises to keep his tax cuts, but the Congress doesn't pass them next term. Fine again. Those are all things we have to understand and deal with.

What I have a problem with, is during his campaign he stated gay marriage was a states' rights issue, but upon becoming president began to push for a Constitutional amendment. That's a clear reversal, a flip-flop if you will, of his position. Similarly, he said if oil prices were out of control, the president should be lobbying OPEC to lower them (1). Now he's president, and isn't doing that; in fact (2, 3). Again, that's something he can control (not oil prices but his actions), and he is clearly not doing what he said originally.

Now I have the luxury, I guess, of being able to look back at things he's said and things he's done. I don't live in Massachusetts, so I can't really do the same with Kerry (of course I could search the web but I still wouldn't know what to look for).

(1) http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/26/se.02.html
(2) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8332331.htm?ERIGHTS=6206631409609135731miami::judd leg@yahoo.com&KRD_RM=9ppqsvptqyrwysxvprxvpppppp
(2a) registration info: http://bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miami.com
(3) http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6348569

[edit - links]

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Ra
No, I think if a candidate promises to do something - raise/lower taxes/benefits, yadda yadda - you have to be weary. Not just because they might not keep their word, but also because there are other factors at play. LIke how Bush said he supported extending the assault weapons ban, but it didn't make it through Congress. Fine. Those things happen. Of if he promises to keep his tax cuts, but the Congress doesn't pass them next term. Fine again. Those are all things we have to understand and deal with.

What I have a problem with, is during his campaign he stated gay marriage was a states' rights issue, but upon becoming president began to push for a Constitutional amendment. That's a clear reversal, a flip-flop if you will, of his position. Similarly, he said if oil prices were out of control, the president should be lobbying OPEC to lower them (1). Now he's president, and isn't doing that; in fact (2, 3). Again, that's something he can control (not oil prices but his actions), and he is clearly not doing what he said originally.

Now I have the luxury, I guess, of being able to look back at things he's said and things he's done. I don't live in Massachusetts, so I can't really do the same with Kerry (of course I could search the web but I still wouldn't know what to look for).

(1) http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/26/se.02.html
(2) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8332331.htm?ERIGHTS=6206631409609135731miami::judd leg@yahoo.com&KRD_RM=9ppqsvptqyrwysxvprxvpppppp
(2a) registration info: http://bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miami.com
(3) http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6348569

[edit - links]


Well, I agree that you can't really blame the President for everything Congress does. No matter who he is.

As for the amdendment business, well....it seems to me he never pushed it until we had a rash of gay weddings in violation of state constitutions and laws take place. It becomes a federal issue because we don't want states to be forced to recognize marriages they don't wan to. Legislation can be found unconstitutional, but an amendment can't. I still don't think I'd support it. I'm sort of neutral onn the idea. The point is that Bush didn't push this from day one. Honestly, it was most likely a move to solidify his base....I think he knows it won't happen.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, I agree that you can't really blame the President for everything Congress does. No matter who he is.

But that didn't stop ya' from trying when Clinton was in office. :lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Northgate
But that didn't stop ya' from trying when Clinton was in office. :lol:



Good one!;)

[rok]

um, to answer the thread question of "if bush wins (re)election?" well, florida's days might be numbered...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v63/enoch1024/GODvsBUSH.gif

:)

p.s. apologies for the width of the image.