One good thing Bush has done

[natedogg]

From my perspective as a middle class guy with just barely enough disposable income to put a little away each year, Bush has done one thing that is manifestly good for this country. Under Bush the limits on IRA contributions have increased. They went up to 4k and they will increase to 5k (I believe it is next year).

He also increased the amounts you can contribute to a medical savings account, which are available to those who have high-deductible health care plans (These plans are great if you have any fiscal discipline whatsoever). You can put away up to $4800 in these accounts I believe. It's tax free going in, and tax free going out if it's used on medical expenses. This account converts to a regular IRA once you turn 59.5 and you can take distributions.

This trend toward making it easier for middle class to save for the future is probably the single most beneficial thing Bush has done for the country.

Can't think of much else to be honest but I have to hand it to him for those.

natedogg

[Nepa]

I agree these are good things. The one thing that I want to know is Bush or anyone for that matter going to get the computer industry going again. The people that are working in tech are hurting as bad as ever. Is this Bush's fault I'm not sure but I do know one thing. When Clinton was in office there were no worries.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree these are good things. The one thing that I want to know is Bush or anyone for that matter going to get the computer industry going again. The people that are working in tech are hurting as bad as ever. Is this Bush's fault I'm not sure but I do know one thing. When Clinton was in office there were no worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tech industry, particularly the website stuff, during Clintons years was an overinflated bubble. The world has changed now. India, China, pakistan and others are catching up. The tech industry will never be like it was during Clintons years.

[adios]

Part of Bush's "ownership society" and represents a philosphical difference with the Kerry approach. Bush wants to effectively make max contributions even higher.

In someways I don't understand why more younger voters don't embrace Bush. Tax deferred and tax free accounts started when a taxpayer is in their early 20's will grow to huge accounts at retirement age. There are strings attached when collecting Social Security and it's debateble whether or not SS will exist in anywhere near it's present form in 30-40 years. Ditto for Medicare. Having the freedom to make one's own choices is so much better than having to comply with government rules and red tape it seems to me. Basically the Kerry approach is to have people reliant on big government for their health care and income needs at retirement. An approach that's destined to result in higher and higher taxes.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
he one thing that I want to know is Bush or anyone for that matter going to get the computer industry going again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This industry in general has some problems I agree. I think the main problem is that companies are much more conservative in their technology investments. The labor pool has been expanded for technology due to outsourcing.


[ QUOTE ]
The people that are working in tech are hurting as bad as ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think things are gradually getting better but the pace is slow I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this Bush's fault I'm not sure but I do know one thing. When Clinton was in office there were no worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the late 1990's was an aberration and here's why. When the "internet craze" and the "new economy" themes got popular on Wall Street you saw a massive amount of capital raised for IPO's in dot.com's. Many of which didn't have a prayer of being successful. Wall Street investment banks fed the frenzy with hype from their analysts and their willingness to take any company possible public. It obviously led to an explosion in fees for the investment banks but it also raised a mamouth amount of capital. This capital was directed at buying technology. The startups bought a ton of software and hardware. Also many existing companies basically stepped up their spending on technology a great deal in the fear that they would be left in the dust so to speak. Also if you remember when these startup companies began having problems because they weren't making any money, the investment bankers were able to raise even more capital through issuing bonds and secondary stock offerings. This all led to a tremendous demand for technical workers which brought the unemployment rate to very low levels. The Fed, led by Greenspan, holds to the theory that there is a "natural" rate of unemployment. They believe more or less that if the demand for labor is too great that inflation will result and thus prices for goods and service will destabilize. Thus Greenspan adopted a restrictive monetary policy which was aimed at slowing economic growth and led to the recession in 2000-2001. It's debatable that Greenspan did the right thing in many quarters since many feel the dot.com bubble would have burst without such a restrictive monetary policy and I believe there's evidence to support that notion. However, a great deal of over investment was done in technology and the tech sector had to decline irregardless.

[MaxPower]

I do have a Roth IRA and max it out every year. I would love to keep the money the I pay to Social Security and invest it myself. I'm sure I could save plenty for retirement. However, that is not going to happen under the Bush administration or the Kerry administration.

I have no doubt that contribution limits will continue to increase no matter who we elect. Also, I'm pretty sure that $3000 is the max contribution right now.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have a Roth IRA and max it out every year. I would love to keep the money the I pay to Social Security and invest it myself. I'm sure I could save plenty for retirement. However, that is not going to happen under the Bush administration or the Kerry administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again Bush doesn't rule by fiat, it will take a bi-partisan effort in Congress to enact Social Security reform. If Republicans can get enough of a majority in the Senate, the fillibuster will not be an option for the Democrats. In all fairness members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are loathe to tackle Social Security reform. The first question in my mind being is Social Security reform needed? If the answer is yes you may not get back your fair share of what you and your employer contributed for you. If the answer is no then nothing needs to change and your stuck with the governments income stream at retirement whether you like it or not. I'm certain that if your employer's contribution and your contribution to social security was directed by you instead the government, you'd do much better. Also there are strings attached determined IMO arbitrarily by the government in collecting Social Security. Furthermore the system is ripe for partisan politics. If you're dependent of the government for your income do you feel that you really have a free choice in whom to vote for? To me it's a lousy sytem. My blood pressure rises everytime I discuss it.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt that contribution limits will continue to increase no matter who we elect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have my doubts. IMO Kerry is totally opposed to this approach. Bush has gone on record as wanting to setup personal savings accounts with max contributions of $7000 per taxpayer per year.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm pretty sure that $3000 is the max contribution right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on a few factors. Here's a link I found:

IRA Contribution Data (http://www.mfea.com/GettingStarted/ArticleArchive/Retirement/Vanguard02_22.asp)

[MaxPower]

It wasn't a criticism of Bush. Politicians on both sides need the senior citizen vote to get elected. Since young people do not vote, they get the shaft. I just don't see any large changes happening no matter who is in power.

If young people started to vote in large numbers they could decide elections and something might change. Change might happen, I just don't think that who we elect in November will have much effect.

[tanda]

We seem to hear a lot of complaints from people demanding to know what strangers have done to solve their problems.

These same complainers never mention what they have done to solve their own problems.

What have you, a person in the computer industry, done to solve the downturn in that sector for yourself and all those other strangers around the country in the industry?

Seems like you, a person in the industry, have as much motivation and opportunity to solve any problems in the industry. Solve them. Then report back to us on your results. Thank you.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
We seem to hear a lot of complaints from people demanding to know what strangers have done to solve their problems.

These same complainers never mention what they have done to solve their own problems.

What have you, a person in the computer industry, done to solve the downturn in that sector for yourself and all those other strangers around the country in the industry?

Seems like you, a person in the industry, have as much motivation and opportunity to solve any problems in the industry. Solve them. Then report back to us on your results. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off I doubled my rates for any computer work I do. I not sure this is solving any problems. It's kidda like working smarter instead of harder. I also have 3 other place that I aquire income one of them being poker of course. I haven't worked full time in over 3 years and if I can get some Health insurance I may never go back.

[Abednego]

He has done wonders for the publishing industry

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree these are good things. The one thing that I want to know is Bush or anyone for that matter going to get the computer industry going again. The people that are working in tech are hurting as bad as ever. Is this Bush's fault I'm not sure but I do know one thing. When Clinton was in office there were no worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best thing a president can do is leave the economy alone.