Politics: Bush's 2nd term objectives

[TheKOB]

Taken from an article at MSN.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844338/

-Add private investment accounts to Social Security, through an as-yet-undefined plan that has many deeply skeptical.
-Simplify a tax code bloated by thousands of provisions that special-interest patrons will be loath to relinquish.
-Limit medical malpractice and class-action jury awards.
-Push a “guest worker” immigration plan that conservatives in his own party oppose

Which do you think are good ideas, which do you think are bad?

I'm for the SS reform. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to look at medical malpractice and class action jury awards as well. I'm all about simplifying the tax codes....if you make it simpler, there is less room for loopholes, that the rich might be better able to utilize while the poor don't know their way around. I also like the sound of the "guest worker" immigration plan. It will, at the least, hopefully stem illegal immigration and the problems that come along with it, and allow us to keep tabs on that segment of society...

Thoughts?

(I deleted the two about Iraq, which has been discussed at length in other threads...)

[Longest]

Taken from an article at MSN.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844338/

-Add private investment accounts to Social Security, through an as-yet-undefined plan that has many deeply skeptical.
-Simplify a tax code bloated by thousands of provisions that special-interest patrons will be loath to relinquish.
-Limit medical malpractice and class-action jury awards.
-Push a “guest worker” immigration plan that conservatives in his own party oppose

Which do you think are good ideas, which do you think are bad?

I'm for the SS reform. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to look at medical malpractice and class action jury awards as well. I'm all about simplifying the tax codes....if you make it simpler, there is less room for loopholes, that the rich might be better able to utilize while the poor don't know their way around. I also like the sound of the "guest worker" immigration plan. It will, at the least, hopefully stem illegal immigration and the problems that come along with it, and allow us to keep tabs on that segment of society...

Thoughts?

(I deleted the two about Iraq, which has been discussed at length in other threads...)

Privatized Social Security I am absolutely for. I want government out of that altogether and the program abolished. That being probably impossible, I will take increased privatization (increased from 0 at the moment).

Simplfying the tax code is a good step toward what I really want, eliminating the IRS altogether. But Kevin, I'm surprised to see you, a Republican, denouncing the supposed "loopholes" for the "rich." Most loopholes are accessible by anybody smart enough to understand the code or hire an accountant and apply it. While I agree that the more money you have, the more flexibilty you have to find these holes, the fact is they exist legally. "Loophole" has the connotation that there is something seamy and possibly illegal, which it is not.

Limiting malpractice would probably be allright but you never know how federal courts are going to rule on anything. Courts have become far too abusive on the matter, penalizing doctors when risky surgeries are chosen by the patient and then angry when the results do not go 100% best-case scenario according to plan. If we could return to a system where doctors that knowingly do harm are punished or those who make real mistakes are punished, instead of punishing doctors who listen to patient choices and act to try to save lives with new techniques, then I think everyone would be better off.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul83.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen46.html

What is he trying to achieve with guest workers? I hope it's open borders. Open this baby up.

There's a gaggle of other things I'd like to see a President do. He could start with eliminating tariffs for special interests and favored industries; cut the Deptartments of Education and Agriculture. Finally convince the country that homosexuals are as deserving of all the rights and respect of every other citizen. They CAN vote and drive and pay taxes. Shrink the government, stop borrowing money, lower taxes, and return power to the states.

Or better, turn the Presidency back into the face of the country it was supposed to be and stop letting him do things. Tell the winner "For 4 years, we're gonna pay you a salary to just hang out at the ranch and occasionally take Air Force 1 to some meetings."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory56.html

But maybe my libertarianism got me all excited.

Dan

[kryptic]

sweet, thats my AP History homework assignment for monday..

[Longest]

sweet, thats my AP History homework assignment for monday..

Well, what do you think on the issue then?

Dan

[Frndlefire]

I am torn on the medical malpractise/class action lawsuit... while I completely agree that malpractice lawsuits should be curbed, I have a feeling that this could be misused to protect negligent industry (methinks about tobacco industry lawsuits). I mean, doctors are paying exorbitant amounts for malpractice insurance right now, so much so that a lot of doctors are stopping to practice. I fear more that this will just cap large class action lawsuit awards for the high-profile and truely negligent with deep pockets that they want to protect. Also, don't most all of those large jury awards get appealed and taken down considerably. I say doctor malpractice protection, but not class action protection.

[Longest]

I was trying to find this earlier, it's a great article on malpractice reform. He introduces the concept of "malresult", which he defines as "protection against the risks of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that may or may not be due to bona fide medical negligence".
http://www.reason.com/hod/ts011005.shtml

Dan

[roughrider]

Surprisingly I am for medical malpractice reform. I guess I am for the "guest workers" program. Well, let me rephrase. As a republican alternative to immigration it is not as radical. Frankly, I would love to see open borders. I am for reforming the tax codes, but not realy in the same way Bush is (Income tax). Right now the tax system of America benefits the rich and the corporations of America by allowing them lucious tax breaks (ie allowing people to catorgorize a yacht as a second home, more bs like that). I would like a tax system more in tune for the working people of America. So in summation, reduce the taxes on the lower class, increase the taxes on the rich and keep the taxes level, about, for the middle class. Revised socialism some might say. Privatization of healthcare, 100% against it. If people pour their money into the stock market they are at risk of stock fluactuations and given a depression we could have a serious problem. Also the system is set up so the rich in the stock market would get richer by the influx of people bumping up stock prices. Those are just wild guesses on the outcome of it. I havnt read anything convincing for it. the KOB, longest, heres a chance for you to bust out your link magic

[Longest]

Surprisingly I am for medical malpractice reform. I guess I am for the "guest workers" program. Well, let me rephrase. As a republican alternative to immigration it is not as radical. Frankly, I would love to see open borders. I am for reforming the tax codes, but not realy in the same way Bush is (Income tax). Right now the tax system of America benefits the rich and the corporations of America by allowing them lucious tax breaks (ie allowing people to catorgorize a yacht as a second home, more bs like that). I would like a tax system more in tune for the working people of America. So in summation, reduce the taxes on the lower class, increase the taxes on the rich and keep the taxes level, about, for the middle class. Revised socialism some might say. Privatization of healthcare, 100% against it. If people pour their money into the stock market they are at risk of stock fluactuations and given a depression we could have a serious problem. Also the system is set up so the rich in the stock market would get richer by the influx of people bumping up stock prices. Those are just wild guesses on the outcome of it. I havnt read anything convincing for it. the KOB, longest, heres a chance for you to bust out your link magic

Tom
The Bush objective was privatization of Social Security, not health care. While your argument is cogent and I am prepared to discuss it if you want, it was not per se the issue.

Before we get to what we do to anyone's taxes, I want spending cut. THAT is what the government needs to look at. They won't NEED the taxes if they would learn to scale back and budget. I can dig up the links on gross pork spending if no one believes the rampant waste going on. This goes for borrowing money as well. The Bush administration's "solution" is to cut taxes, increase spending, and borrow money, and act like that's a good plan. It's not even possible for citizens, I dno't think it's a good idea for the government. It's not their money to begin with, it's ours. To those of you prepared to defend Bush on this, I want you to be aware that he has vetoed exactly 0 bills in his first term. Nada. Nothing hit his desk that he did not approve so his complicity in creating these money-guzzling acts is equal to Congress. (If you want more on that, http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance32.html)

As for cuts. The "rich" 20% of people in this country are already paying 83% of all taxes (People making over about $85,000). How much percentage should they pay, 90? 95? 100? The top 50% are paying 96% of the taxes. These are people making $26,000 and up. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01.html)

http://www.ourcrowdedplanet.org/taxes.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201

What is tax money paying for? Ultimately, government services. As the salon article points out, it's unfair to expect someone to pay 30 times their share unless they're using 30 times the services, which seems, at best, unlikely.

Those are the numbers as I find them for tax cuts. Calls for the "rich" to pay their "fair share" and stop getting money "back" is a red herring. They pay the taxes, of course they get that money back.

As for the discussion on the stock market, I'm not sure about your knowledge of how it operates. ( Basic primer: http://www.howstuffworks.com/stock.htm) But first, there are thousands of stocks. Some good, some bad. The chances of millions of people dumping all their money into a few choice stocks in one day to skyrocket that price strikes me as unbelievable. That would be the "rich people" benefiting. And again with the unnamed rich persons. I believe the correct version is anyone that already owns the stock, regardless of income level. People have different thresholds, different timing, different choices. The market itself, historically, averages about 8% (Dow Jones) a year, far outpacing inflation. If you people did nothing but buy an index fund, over the course of a lifetime, the gains would be significant. And if you switch to the S&P Index, you do even better (10%+) . Do you think bonds the government buys are yielding that? Guess again. Most planners advise an approach proportional to your age. When you're younger, 20s and 30s, put the money into more stocks then bonds (70% of your money or more, depending on risk-tolerance). As you age, move the money to money markets, CDs, bonds, etc. When you reach retirement, your money will be moved into vehicles that are not as subject to risk. So as you see, it's not the 100% "all in" approach to stocks, it's called prudent financial management. And by applying it, individuals can far outstrip what the government produce.
To quote the creator of Social Security, it was never intended to be the sole means of one's retirement, just a base or foundation. I personally want the ability to decide where all my money goes. Plenty of others do. If they do, I believe thats' their right. Let them opt out and do what they wish. It's not the government's job to try to ensure responsibility for retirement. If the government would stop borrowing out of the damn kitty, they wouldn't need ppl to keep pumping money into it every month. Again, that goes back to cutting spending and stop borrowing money.

That might be enough for now. Cheers.

Dan

[roughrider]

yeah i messsed up and mean to say social security. oops