Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Face It: Ace is Gone (WuzzaDem AND The Unpopulist) | Main | Democrats To Vote Rice In Despite "Reservations" [Say Anything] »
January 26, 2005

What Bush Means By "Ownership" [Say Anything]

This editorial masquerading as an "article" from USA Today is interesting. Here's the first paragraph:

President Bush is selling his idea to transform Social Security with private investment accounts as part of a new "ownership society" for Americans. The accounts, Vice President Cheney says, would be "a retirement fund they control themselves and can call their own."

Here's the second paragraph, which I like to call the "But..." paragraph. Its the point at which the reporter feels his obligation to reporting "the other side of the issue" is complete and moves on to pile up the criticism.

But the reality would produce a lot less individual control than Bush and Cheney suggest.

Major proposals, including those from the president's own commission,to revamp Social Security with private investment accounts include provisions that place big limits on how much money individuals can invest, where it can be invested, what they can do with it when they retire and how much they can pass on to heirs.

Bush has not offered a specific plan to reshape Social Security, his top domestic priority, but he has said workers should be able to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into investment accounts. "By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal," he said in his second inaugural address last week.

The reporter is missing the point here in regard to "ownership." When the President talks about citizens "owning" their Social Security funds what he means is that the funds will no longer be available to greedy politicians looking to raid Social Security to fund other programs and legislation. The government won't have access to your private Social Security account any more then they'd have access to your savings account in the bank.

Granted there will be limits as how much you can pay in or invest but at least you'll know it will be there when you retire. Right now we have no such guarantee. And lets be honest, if Social Security is the sum total of your retirement plans you're a damn fool. In fact, unless Social Security is fixed now I'm not planning on seeing a dime when I retire.

[Cross-posted at Say Anything]


posted by Ace at 09:23 AM
Comments



Does anybody else realize that people already have control over their own retirement investments? I know I have all the controlin the world over my retirement investments. Am I the only person in the world who has heard of a 401k, or the "stock market" or "IRA's"? They are really fancy schmancy investments, so I can understand how people wouldn't be aware they are available.

Posted by: Ryan on January 26, 2005 10:57 AM

The reporter probably doesn't understand the distinction between "freedom" and "liberty." Under Bush's plan, you would own your retirement fund "free" from government claims, but would not be at "liberty" to invest them in Florida swamp land.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins on January 26, 2005 11:39 AM

Over 20 years ago I figured the well was gonna be dry when it was my time.

I would have gladly completely forfeited any possibility of ever collecting a dime from this sham, for the ability to have my "contributions" reduced by 50%.

Posted by: TonyI on January 26, 2005 01:48 PM

"The reporter is missing the point here in regard to "ownership." When the President talks about citizens "owning" their Social Security funds what he means is that the funds will no longer be available to greedy politicians looking to raid Social Security to fund other programs and legislation. The government won't have access to your private Social Security account any more then they'd have access to your savings account in the bank. "

Seems to me they've got plenty of access to that account, given that they have ultimate control over the use of its contents.

If it was your money, you'd be able to invest it, or even spend it, without asking anyone's permission.

Social Security reform should have one overriding goal - to limit or reverse the cancerous growth of the program. Adding "private" accounts to it isn't helping one bit. What are needed are limits to the promised benefits, either in their amount or in how soon you can start getting them; this can be supplemented as needed with truly private savings and investment without a new "private" account mechanism tacked on.

Posted by: Ken on January 26, 2005 05:05 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!
Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all
Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine
US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.
Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies
“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”
Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]
Recent Comments
Anna Puma: "If it translates to humans, bonus - Dr. Fauci. ..."

Denny Crane - You're Batting 1.000!: "183 179 174 two kids. got laid twice. pullout gam ..."

LASue: "Oh to be a young 22 year old social worker fresh o ..."

Anna Puma: "Aetius Uselessnet ..."

Aetius451AD: "229 Salvation the easy way! Christian podcaster ..."

r hennigantx: "Mo' Kings Chuck Schumer. 46 years. Longer tha ..."

TheJamesMadison, discovering British horror with Hammer Films: "228 She read her dissenting opinion from the Bench ..."

Aetius451AD: "231 A modest proposal then, let's experiment on RE ..."

Huck Follywood: "Lovely painting. Thanks CBD. ..."

Aetius451AD: "227 SCOTUS says 'you shall not experiment on child ..."

[/i][/b][/s][/u]I used to have a different nic: "[i]A modest proposal then, let's experiment on RED ..."

Fredo: "222 I'm not the crazy retarded one here! Everyone ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives