America’s prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government.
Then how come under George W. Bush, a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate, the federal government has grown far more than it ever has before?
How come the spending appetite of Bush’s government is so voracious that he has piled up gigantic mountains of debt to pay for his gluttony?
And why does he now pretend that he believes in restraining spending?
The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.
Sure – we can spend billions of dollars look for WMDs that don’t exist, and next to nothing armoring the vehicles of people who are in a war zone.
I have appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom.
A bipartisan panel that was chosen for ideological adherence to Bush’s agenda.
The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy.Quote 1:
“The Social Security system cannot go "bankrupt," for it has no creditors. By law, the trustees will continue to pay reduced benefits even if the trust fund is exhausted. Payroll taxes will continue to come in and benefits will continue to be paid.” - CBS MarketWatch
"According to the Social Security trustees report, the standard basis for analyzing Social Security, the program can pay all benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042 the program would always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (in today's dollars) than what current retirees receive. The assessment of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is that Social Security is even stronger. It projects that Social Security can pay all benefits through the year 2052 with no changes whatsoever. By either measure, Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history."
-- Non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research
"REPORTER: And am I right in assuming that it would be fair to describe the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On the second point, that's a fair
inference. - White House Background press briefing on Social Security
So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in.But under Bush’s plan, it will be paying out more than it takes in IMMEDIATELY.
By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.
He said it again. And it didn't become any truer the second time he said it. To the Democrats credit, several of them actually shouted "NO!" when he said it, and they should do more of that. This is a total falsehood. It will NOT be bankrupt. Under extremely pessimistic economic projections, it MAY be only able to pay out 75% of the full benefits. But according to the CBO, under Bush’s plan, it will only be 55% of the current benefit. And, if those pessimistic projections prove true, having your money is private accounts would be disastrous.
We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes.
Really? Why the hell SHOULDN’T you increase payroll taxes? Because that would easily solve whatever problems that there might actually be without screwing the little guy? Right now, there is no Social Security payroll tax on income of about $90,000 for a single person. So take people in the upper income bracket, and increase what they put in. Problem solved, if it ever becomes a problem.
But the only actual principle that Bush believes in is that the wealthiest should get a free ride.
Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.
BUT (again) "the check you will receive from Social Security" will be a LOT LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the money in "your account" will make up the difference.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Excuse Me While I Puke: Part 1. I get so sick of these clowns defining "activist judges" as any judge who does something that they don't like. How can judges "re-define marriage"? It HAS NO LEGAL FEDERAL DEFINITION. How can you REdefine something that hasn't been defined? They want to "redefine" the Constitution and turn it into a document that dictates your personal life and RESTRICTS your rights instead of ensuring them.
Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life.
Excuse Me While I Puke: Part 2. Hereing pious talk about "building a culture of life" from the mouth of President War Hardon while he is simultaneously killing as many people as he possibly can is BEYOND ludicrous. The Democrats didn't shout "No!" at this one. And they shouldn't have. They should have laughed mockingly and derisively.
The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.
The Constitution says that judicial nominees are chosen with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. It doesn't say a damned THING about guaranteeing every nominee an up-or-down vote. Maybe you can get an activist judge to change that.
In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit.
Unless they are in Guatanamo.
There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Hmmmmm. Where have I heard that before?
Pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror - and I thank the Congress for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed.
Ummmm....George? They are scrounging junkyards for scrap metal because their vehicles have no armor. You AREN'T providing them with the resources that they need.
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else.
And William Shakespeare was a ham sandwich.
To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder.
Correction: Regimes that we CLAIM harbor terrorists and that we CLAIM pursue weapons of mass murder. Even if we are lying. Iraq was such a good idea, wasn't it?
Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act - and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today, Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.
No mention of North Korea. What happened, George, they aren't part of the axis of evil anymore? Or is it just that they actually DO have nukes, and DO help teorrists, but have no oil?
They must feel so rejected.
That country [Iraq] is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there.
No, they have chosen to make a stand there because you opened up the borders and allowed them to come flooding in.
Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.
1) They weren't IN Iraq until we invaded.
2) Fighting SOME terrorists there doesn't do a damned thing to prevent OTHER terrorists from fighting us here. In fact, we are increasing their numbers.
3) This whole APPROACH disgusts me. Did we invade Iraq because we INTENTIONALLY wanted to turn it into a battlefield? A battlefield in a war that they had nothing to do with them? So that the IRAQIS would be the ones on the receiving end of all the nasty shit of war? We brought Al Qaeda and suicide bombers flooding into their country on PURPOSE?
And then we wonder why they hate us?