Social Security Cap Raising Sanity

Some people are saying that raising the Social Security Cap will only increase the life of Social Security by seven years. However, according to a February 7, 2005 Memo to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, that may not be entirely accurate. In particular check out page 18 of the document which asks the question "What if we eliminate the cap?"

According to this analysis, the trust won't run out until at least 2079, and there will still be money in the trust fund. But those who throw out the 7 years figure are possibly assuming that there is no trust fund.

Got this from Talking Points Memo, which you should be reading on a regular basis.

Around the Horn and a Dream of Umbrellas

I had a dream last night in which I had two umbrellas. I looked down and in my left hand I had not one, but two umbrellas. I wondered, in my dream, why on earth would I have two umbrellas. It is going to rain outside, and coincidentally enough I have no umbrellas.

And Then . . . has some very trenchant comments on one of the big dogs in the Lefty Blog-O-Sphere.

Rooks Rant also is up in arms about a big liberal blogger. It's a case of biting the hand that, well, doesn't feed you.

Also, for those of you who can't get enough of Bloggers writing about Bloggers, Steve Gilliard's News Blog has the scoop that bloggers are a lot like rappers. For the record I do enjoy "loose-fitting, pajama-style apparel."

Also Trish Wilson's Blog has a piece on Woman Bloggers, and the perceived lack of Woman Bloggers. I have to say people who complain about the lack of Woman Bloggers are a lot like guys in the 60's saying "Well I'd love to hire some black people, but there just aren't any qualified black people around." In other words it's a dodge. And a dodgy one at that.

blogAmy has a selection of fun quizzes you can take and, apparently, she is "Trippy, spaced-out, artistic and fun to be around."

Chris "Lefty" Brown has a great post on what it means to be a Christian and a Liberal.

Collective Sigh reviews the history of a country who should apparently be taken off of our Christmas card list.

Dohiyi Mir has some comments about the Anti-AARP ad earlier this week and the decision to take it down. For those who missed it, the ad presented that the AARP is anti American Soldier and pro gay marriage.

Gamer's Nook has some thoughts on Halliburton's bonuses for doing such a great job, apparently.

And that's it for another week. And, just in case you thought I had forgotten about my new blogging suit, how about this?

How about this jacket?

What I find disturbing about this pic, is that they took the time to edit out the hands or anything below the bottom of the jacket, but left us a sliver of neck to look at. Somehow the combined effect is subtly creepy.

Pants shopping

Yeah, I got nothing.

But I am working on my new suit in order to ensure both modesty and marketability. What do you think of these pants?



These pants are already sold, but perhaps I could get something like them at some point. That'd be something new, n'est pas?

A New Suit

Well, over at the Daou Report, Salon's review of the Blog-o-sphere (which has yet to reference this site, as far as I know), they have the news from the scourge; lefty blogs suck. Why do they suck? Well the scourge has the answer to that as well.

The answer is simple: Lefty blogging got played out. Liberal blogs are sucking for the same reason their rhetoric sounds so stale. The leftern route to blogfame - outrage, predicting wars, "let's get organized,' vanilla Bush-bashing - has been trammeled and re-trammeled again and again, and now it's paved, lit, and dotted along the way by Starbucks and McDonalds. Conservative blogs are still blazing their trail. The trademark dry n' dismissive style you'll find on Instapundit, Oxblog, Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin and others hasn't yet become tiresome to jaded eyes, although it will. The Liberal Outrage blogstyle, on the other hand, has been a painful cliche for a while now.

. . . You heard it here first: Liberal blogging is going to continue to bore until it gets a new suit of clothes. We can see its exposed crotch through the rags it's sporting now, and, well, it isn't a pleasant sight.

Holy Crap! I didn't realize you could see my . . . plumbing through my current set of clothes. Let me go check this out.

No, I just looked in a mirror and all the unpleasant bits (which, in my case, make up 98.6% of the body) are completely covered. Still maybe I should get a new suit.

I'm thinking like a lime green pastel suit, with a big hat. Or maybe very tight triple breasted pinstrip jobber and a fedora. What do you think?

Ann Coulter - Not Entirely Correct

Ann Coulter brings all of her powerful invective on the case of Jeff Gannon. For those of you who don't know, Jeff Gannon was a male escort, who got a press pass to ask fawning questions of President Bush and his press secretaries. If Clinton had done it, we can only imagine how Ann would be reacting. Since President Bush did it, it's no big deal.

But when invective can't quite finish the job, Ann turns to another tool, outright deception. "Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay." Well let's take the second part first. It's not that he is gay, it's that he was a male escort. Maybe Ann is one of them libertarian types who has no problem with prostitution, but the laws of the United States have a different opinion.

As for the charge that Gannon never wrote about gays, according to Media Matters (who grabbed Gannon's articles before Talon News destroyed the evidence), on October 12, 2004, he claimed that Kerry could become America's first Gay President. Doesn't sound very good does it? I wish I could give you some quotes from the article, but Talon News, in their wisdom, have decided that we shouldn't be able to read Gannon's articles now.

People Who Have Nothing to Hide have Nothing to Fear

That's the rationale. If you have nothing to hide than you have nothing to fear.

That justifies Discover the Network, a spiderweb chart of a website, created by Front Page Magazine and David Horowitz, who writes articles that appeal to racists. You can use that website to undercover the hidden links between liberal groups that tie them back to terrorists and communists who want to destroy America.

Because it's not enough that Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the White House. It's not enough that, not only do most mainstream media outlets skew right on issues that matter, they have Fox News and other media sources to give exclusive conservative opinions. What these men want, what they really want, is no more liberals and no more Democrats. It will never be enough until we are gone, or at least so vilified that we are afraid to express our views out loud.

Is that what most Republicans want? I doubt it, but I have no way of knowing.

Leaving Something Behind

The New York Time's editorial page takes on a much publicized portion of the President's Plan (the one he hasn't actually proposed yet). Namely the assertion that "Personal Accounts" would allow one to pass on the money to one's descendents in the event that one didn't spend it all. Well, maybe not.

Under the president's proposal, when you retired you would not be able to start spending the money in your private account until after you bought an annuity, a financial contract in which you hand over a lump-sum payment and, in return, get a monthly stream of income for life. The upside of buying such an annuity would be that you'd be protected against outliving all of your money. The downside is that even if you died immediately after retirement, the most your heirs would inherit would be the amount that remained in your private account after you had paid for the mandatory annuity. (If you lived longer, of course, you might well need to spend the remainder to supplement the annuity's low monthly payout.)

Hmmmmm. Troubling. But not surprising.

Tax-Eating Granny Redux

E.J. Dionne, Jr., in his latest, suggests that portraying all Seniors as living high on the hog is apparently not accurate.

Those who advocate cutting programs for the elderly inevitably stress the supposedly "unfair" burdens this population will place on everyone else. . . .

What's wrong with this argument? First, it deals with the elderly as a single, undifferentiated group. The retired millionaire playing golf in Palm Springs is spoken of as if he is in the same class as the elderly widow in a modest apartment in Cleveland. But the Palm Springs millionaire is not the typical senior; he's the exception. Most who use Medicare and rely on Social Security desperately need the help to stay out of poverty.

Consider that for about 20 percent of retirees, every penny of their income comes from Social Security. Social Security provides half or more of the income of nearly two-thirds of the elderly. Greedy is not a word that comes to mind to describe such people.

Rush Limbaugh likes saying that if you depend on Social Security for your retirement you are poor. Of course he usually chooses not to enlighten you as to how many American Elderly find themselves in that situation. Instead he likes to talk about how you will be paying his golf fees. Nice eh?

Hey Europe

I know you are thinking American Conservatives might be warming up to you, what with President Bush calling Pommes Frites "French Fries" and all. But for a taste of what American Conservatives really think of "Old Europe," check out this opening paragraph from an article at the American Spectator.

The BBC calls it President Bush's "charm offensive." Off to EUnuch-land for a week of conciliation, the President is doing his best to heal the rifts that divide us from our traditional NATO allies. The problem nations, better known to our readers as the Axis of Weasels, are greeting Mr. Bush with profusions of smiles and hugs while they go about sharpening shivs to stick in his back. Is it really worth the effort for the President to even try?

So, you know, I wouldn't expect much.

A Catalogue of Feelings

Dennis Prager, who has previously called for a second civil war, writes a catalogue column. Basically he takes a simple theme (Liberals make decisions based on their feelings, instead of relying on the Bible. That's a very pleasing thesis (if you are a Conservative), but it's also pretty stupid. Let's look at a few of his examples.

The liberal preoccupation with whether America is loved or hated is also entirely feelings-based. The Left wants to be loved; the conservative wants to do what is right and deems world opinion fickle at best and immoral at worst.

The left doesn't want to be loved out of some neurotic fixation; the left wants to get along with those nations whose support we need to effectively fight the war on terror and accomplish other international goals. Conversely it is just as accurate to say that the Bush administration and its supporters are trying to live out fantasies inspired by G. I. Joe, while the Liberals of America are trying to rationally figure out the most effective way to fight terrorism.

Sexual harassment laws have created a feelings-industrial complex. The entire concept of "hostile work environment" is feelings based. If one woman resents a swimsuit calendar on a co-worker's desk, laws have now been passed whose sole purpose is to protect her from having uncomfortable feelings.

Frankly this paragraph I find morally reprehensible. Any abusive or nasty treatment towards woman is the women's fault for taking offense. If she would just take tasteless jokes at her expense, there would be no problem. Here's a model for her to consider (from the Simpsons Episode "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy"

Lisa: Is the remarkably sexist drivel spouted by Malibu Stacy intentional, or is it just a horrible mistake?
Tour guide: [laughs] Believe me, we're very mindful of such concerns.
Man: [wolf whistles] Hey Jiggles, grab a pad and back that gorgeous butt in here.
Tour guide: [laughs good-naturedly] Oh, get away, you.
Man: Aw, don't act like you don't like it.

I don't know about my readers, but I don't think that the solution to harassment is for the harrassee to just accept it.

Very often, liberals are far more concerned with purity of motive than with moral results. That's why so many liberals still oppose the liberation of Iraq -- so what if Iraqis risk their lives to vote? It's George W. Bush's motives that liberals care about, not spreading liberty in the Arab world.

Actually they are two separate issues. The first issue is whether or not President Bush did the right thing in leading us into war on false pretenses. The answer, for liberals, is that that wasn't the right thing to do. That doesn't mean we begrudge the fact that President Bush's blunder has lead to Iraqi's being able to vote (the second issue). Although even that has to be placed as part of a whole. What will the election mean in the long term? Is it an aberration or is it the first step towards a democratic Iraq? Or, as many are now wondering, is it the first step towards a Shiite Theocratic Iraq, along the model of Iran?

But I suppose asking more complicated questions and not accepting simplistic answers is a symptom of Liberalism's reliance on feelings. Or is it?

Atom Feed

I think I have Atom Feed working, but not sure. Tell me if it is working right. There's a link to it down there on the side.

Fixing Social Security for Good

Apparently the Heritage Foundation has done some research, and apparently raising the Social Security cap won't fix Social Security permanently. Of course their research also shows Social Security being out of money in 2018 (on the theory, I suppose, that there is no Social Security Trust Fund and United States Treasury Securities aren't worth the paper they are printed on. So you have to take their calculations with a grain of salt.

But let's settle one thing. The only way to solve Social Security permanently is to eliminate the program. If there is no Social Security, there will be no Social Security Program. There might be an elderly poverty problem. There might even be an elderly eating cat food problem. But there will be no Social Security problem.

Is there anybody foolish enough to believe that President Bush's Personal Accounts will solve Social Security permanently? The only way that can happen is if, as many suspect, it is the first gambit towards getting rid of Social Security entirely.

Taxing the Wealthy

Well, as many of you know, President Bush has pledged not to raise new taxes. But apparently he is considering raising the cap. Right now most Americans pay 6% of their income to Social Security (while the employer kicks in another 6%). The first $90,000 people make is taxable. So people making $30,000 or $50,000 have their entire salary taxed. People making $150,000, on the other hand pay only 3.6%. People making $250,000 only pay 2.16%.

So President Bush wants to raise the cap. This is a bad move, according to Larry Kudlow.

Just this week he undercut that position when he said an increase in the payroll-tax cap -- now $90,000 -- would be ?on the table? in forthcoming negotiations with Congress. White House spokespeople have tried to suggest that an increase in the payroll-tax cap is not a new tax, and that only a rise in the payroll-tax rate would constitute a tax hike. This is nothing but doublespeak. The American public will see it for what it is.

A front-page editorial in the New York Sun referred to this episode as ?sins of the father.? Papa Bush, you may recall, pledged no new taxes. He then broke that pledge with a huge tax hike in his second year in office. That broken promise, along with the added tax burden on working Americans, proved politically catastrophic as Bush 41 was defeated by Bill Clinton.

Well, yeah, but President Bush doesn't actually have to run for reelection. So it's unlikely there is a Bill Clinton like defeat in his future. Oh and you know your argument's strong when you are lifting quotes from the New York Sun.

It's also unclear why the majority of Americans would be opposed to evening out the playing field a little bit. Kudlow points out, correctly I guess, that people making $90,000 a year are going to have to pay more taxes. Well, their fair share of taxes, anyway. But maybe we could all live with that, after all.

Post Card from the Monster

Here is another postcard from the Monster, one in which he has inexplicably traveled into the past. Ancient Japan, to be precise. I regret that obeying the laws of physics as currently understood is but one of the many contractual obligations the Monster has failed to live up to. But never let it be said that I don't give both sides of the story. Here is the monsters postcard and letter.

Arrrghhogha arrghushh

That is a monster cry of warning. There are no-truth tellers present. And chief among them is that man who runs Make me a commenter!!! Bryant

Ha! It should be called Monster be Commentator!!! The be more truth way of describing it. All the funny bits of website all come from me. Bryant he want talk about boring statistics all day long.

And now when it come time for him to provide monster with rotting gazelles, Bryant no have gazelles. He have green paper. Monster no want green paper.

Bryant try to fool monster with talk about how green paper is magic paper that everybody wants. Ha! Monster no fool. Monster stay out of time and out of place until he live up to his part of the bargain!

Monster say goodbye to all.

So you see my quandary. The Monster has it in his head that I promised to pay him gazelles, but I never promised that. I paid him, but he doesn't like the money. So what can I do?

New Format, New Quote!

Hey, updated the format and the quote and so on. I'm sure you all noticed no monster up there in the logo. I'm afraid that there have been certian business considerations that have prevented the Monster from appearing, so he has decided to continue his vacation. He did send another postcard, which I will scan in anon. Oh and a new quotes page as well.