oleman, when are you going to write about Government largesse? Here's a subject you missed in today's NY Times. We'll start with a quote, then the beginning of the article.
From the Alakan Repreentative who just received pork in the form of (2) extravagant bridges to nowhere:
>>>"If you don't do it now, when are you going to do it?" he said at the luncheon. "This is the time to take advantage of the position I'm in, along with Senator Stevens."
He said he would support an increase in the federal tax on gasoline � a "user fee," he called it � to pay for even more projects than were included in the newly passed bill.<<<
Built With Steel, Perhaps, but Greased With Pork
By TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: April 10, 2004
KETCHIKAN, Alaska, April 8 � Even by the standards of Alaska, the land where schemes and dreams come for new life, two bridges approved under the national highway bill passed by the House last week are monuments to the imagination.
One, here in Ketchikan, would be among the biggest in the United States: a mile long, with a top clearance of 200 feet from the water � 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and just 20 feet short of the Golden Gate Bridge. It would connect this economically depressed, rain-soaked town of 7,845 people to an island that has about 50 residents and the area's airport, which offers six flights a day (a few more in summer). It could cost about $200 million.
The other bridge would span an inlet for nearly two miles to tie Anchorage to a port that has a single regular tenant and almost no homes or businesses. It would cost up to $2 billion.
These "bridges to nowhere," as critics have dubbed the two costliest of the high-priority projects in the six-year, $275 billion House bill, are one reason Republicans are fighting among themselves in shaping the nation's transportation spending.
President Bush has threatened to use his first veto against any measure that emerges from a House-Senate conference with a cost of more than $256 billion. (The Senate version, passed in February, calls for $318 billion and includes neither of the projects, though their champion on Capitol Hill voices certainty that they will be added in conference.) Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has described the legislation as so laden with pork as to betray the party's principles.
But if this is pork, the Republican behind the House bill says bring it on, with extra fat. Representative Don Young, Alaska's lone member of the House, where he is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is already known as Mr. Concrete but would like to wear another title as well.
>>>So, the old scare is starting again, People are not secure in their jobs, many are worried that the SS is going to fail because the conntry will not have the resolve or strength to pay what it owes to the SS system.<<<
What George Bush permitted last week, that companies could postpone their pension obligations till after the election, shows there is little resolve to make sure that companies meet employee obligations. Everything is subservient to the political process. In that environment, there is no difference between SS and private pension plans. Therefore, Bush doesn't need to change SS.
There has been much debate on my argument of the three legs of Social Security. In order to clarify my point that it was from it's founding meant to be one of 3 legs of the stool of retirement I present the words of FDR spoken January 15, 1935:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Great link for information on SS:
The draft bill submitted by FDR differed in many interesting respects from the final Social Security Act which emerged from Congress in August 1935. For example, FDR had proposed a three-part program of old-age security consisting of: old-age welfare pensions; compulsory contributory social insurance (what we now think of as Social Security); and a third-tier which would consist of optional annuity certificates sold by the government to workers who, upon retirement, could convert the certificates to monthly annuities which would be used as supplements to their basic Social Security retirement benefit. This third program was among the features of the President's proposals which the Congress did not accept. Many other changes were made in the Administration's proposal, which is reproduced in full below.
On this I agree with you Mickie, even though you probably don't agree with me.
When SS started,the country was in deep deep depression. Companies were not providing pensions, and saving accounts were gone. The banks went Kapoot as in bankrupt. Prior to SS there were no legs. When SS started, The SS leg was the only leg for retirement, thus social security retirement benefit plan,/ insurance. FICA. One couldn't enter retiremnt on nothing.
The FDIC was also set up in the 1920's and '30's, because of the Bank failures. This started to ensure the trust in banks.
In addition, there was so much fear that the country could go commonist or at best socialist, that companies too started retirement plans and pension plans.
This also was the motive behind SS. It worked too. The country's hopes sere raised, we didn't panic and turn to socialism or communism.
Now the problem is that these, socialism and communism, are no longer a threat, and companies no longer feel ANY social obligation to emplyees, state, country or even shareholders. It is all for the CEO and his minions. So, the old scare is starting again, People are not secure in their jobs, many are worried that the SS is going to fail because the conntry will not have the resolve or strength to pay what it owes to the SS system.
this has been a good thread.
In a world full of mikies, maybe anyone can be a successful and wealthy comedian.
Of course one must consider nitwits' ability to transport themselves to the comedy house, pay the entrance fee, ....
Well, actually, even to feed and cloth themselves.
Another lost opportunity for entrepreneurship.
REGARDING: You suck.
RESPONSE: Ha, ha...., Woody..., the tears are still rolling down my cheeks. Thankx.
Allow me to define "you suck" (in this usage):
LAST: $51.32 UP 13 cents with the DOW down 30 points
REGARDING: Very evident you can't READ since I state several times SS is intended to be ONE leg of a three legged retirement stool.
RESPONSE: Actually..., you are incorrect.
The SS Act was intended to provide a safety net. It was a "stand-alone" concept. Keep in mind..., this was born in the 30's, due to the Great Depression.
Most realize that this "safety net" will not be sufficient to enable them to live in the manner in which they would like to unless this safety-net is augmented by personal savings, etc..
LAST: $51.37 UP 18 cents with the DOW down 22 points