From today's AP Newswire...

SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) - In state after state along President Bush's Social Security road campaign, hand-picked audiences cheer him, leaving the impression that the nation wholeheartedly backs his ideas for reform.

The reality is different.

While a majority of Americans approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and foreign policy, just 37 percent like his approach to Social Security, an Associated Press poll found...

Only when dissenters manage to slip into the presidential events and voice their disapproval is there an inkling of what opinion polls clearly show: Not everyone is on board. At a stop earlier in the day in Memphis, Tenn., a young woman shouted "No" as Bush marketed his ideas onstage. The woman, one of four people who interrupted Bush's remarks, was escorted out of the event. A man in the crowd later shook his head and muttered aloud: "There's no guarantee. There's no guarantee," apparently in disagreement with Bush's proposals.

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Social Security. A similar number in a recent AP poll opposed the creation of personal accounts. Even people who approve of the way Bush has handled terrorism - political independents, Catholics, married women, older Americans and Southerners - have strong doubts about his Social Security plans.

"If he's having difficulty in selling his plan in red states, you can imagine how hard it will be in blue states," said Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat who represents much of Memphis and attended the event..." (Emphasis added for those who get bored reading long posts. You know who you are.)

The same poll finds approval of the President's job performance at 48% positive; 50% negative. The President's best peformance is in the area of "foreign policy and terrorism" where a majority (52%) approve and 46% disapprove. (Removal of the word "terrorism" from the question drops the approval figure to the mid-40's.)

I saw a commercial for Bush and voluntary social security donations. Good idea!

It doesn't matter. He can have man-on-dog sex parties in the White House with Rick Santorum - and may, for all I know - and it won't make any difference. We have a pampered, vain, lapdog press corps, and these clowns control all three branches of government. (Or they will, as soon as a couple more Supremes die or retire.)

From today's AP Newswire...

SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) - In state after state along President Bush's Social Security road campaign, hand-picked audiences cheer him, leaving the impression that the nation wholeheartedly backs his ideas for reform.

The reality is different.

While a majority of Americans approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and foreign policy, just 37 percent like his approach to Social Security, an Associated Press poll found...

Only when dissenters manage to slip into the presidential events and voice their disapproval is there an inkling of what opinion polls clearly show: Not everyone is on board. At a stop earlier in the day in Memphis, Tenn., a young woman shouted "No" as Bush marketed his ideas onstage. The woman, one of four people who interrupted Bush's remarks, was escorted out of the event. A man in the crowd later shook his head and muttered aloud: "There's no guarantee. There's no guarantee," apparently in disagreement with Bush's proposals.

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Social Security. A similar number in a recent AP poll opposed the creation of personal accounts. Even people who approve of the way Bush has handled terrorism - political independents, Catholics, married women, older Americans and Southerners - have strong doubts about his Social Security plans.

"If he's having difficulty in selling his plan in red states, you can imagine how hard it will be in blue states," said Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat who represents much of Memphis and attended the event..." (Emphasis added for those who get bored reading long posts. You know who you are.)

The same poll finds approval of the President's job performance at 48% positive; 50% negative. The President's best peformance is in the area of "foreign policy and terrorism" where a majority (52%) approve and 46% disapprove. (Removal of the word "terrorism" from the question drops the approval figure to the mid-40's.)

I have no idea how Bush expects to siphon off 10% of the Social Security taxes, and maintain benefit levels in the current program. He is not "saving Social Security;" he is fundamentally changing it, by replacing the present system with an entirely different one.

Of course, I understand that, like everything he does, he's not being at all honest in what he's saying his intention is. Since today's Social Security taxes pay next month's benefits, benefits under the present system will have to drop, but he doesn't want to say that.

What else is new?

I saw a commercial for Bush and voluntary social security donations. Good idea!
Hey, there's a place for you in one of Bush's "hand picked audiences."

Hey, there's a place for you in one of Bush's "hand picked audiences."


woohoo, I can clap and cheer with the best of them, especially when I believe what I am hearing.

so then whats your plan? federalize everything?

The best description I've heard for the proposed plan is this:


You're in the desert, dying of thirst. Then Bush comes along and you ask him for water. He says, well I don't have any water, but how about some lemonade? You say, ok that'd be great. Then he hands you some lemonade mix and says, here you go, just add water.


The problem is that ss will be low on money. And the solution requires more money then the system will ever be down.


But more central then that, back in the 80s this same problem was in front of America. And the solution that was offered was to raise the salary cap. This was presented to everyone as the way of sacrificing a little bit now, that way the benefits will always be there.


The problem was, that the excess money that was coming in from raising the salary cap wasn't kept separate in a lock box, like some people wanted. Instead it went to short term lowering of the deficit.


So now, it looks like 40 years down the line we might have a problem. But the problem with that is that you're forecasting so far down the line. And the further you forecast the less accurate you are.

One way to fix it would be to but back the money that has been taken out by the administrations. If they did it would go a long way at restoring solvency!

so then whats your plan? federalize everything?

I find it collassally humorous that the Republican party is still spouting "we're not about big government and big governemnt expenditures"

Meanwhile, Bush has added more employees and more to the federal bureaucracy than the last three presidents COMBINED and has taken us from balanced budgets with billions in surplus to setting record after record for debt levels.

Something ain't washing here.

It doesn't matter. He can have man-on-dog sex parties in the White House with Rick Santorum - and may, for all I know - and it won't make any difference. We have a pampered, vain, lapdog press corps, and these clowns control all three branches of government. (Or they will, as soon as a couple more Supremes die or retire.)



ROFLMAO.....man dog love party....can't breath..... :D

One way to fix it would be to but back the money that has been taken out by the administrations. If they did it would go a long way at restoring solvency!
Interesting comment, but I'm not sure what it means. Are you implying that the Federal Government has been looting the Social Security Trust Fund? If so, that simply isn't the case. Whenever the Federal Government "borrows" from Social Security it issues securities (iou's) that are identical to the securities it sells to foreign investors and, for that matter, American citizens in the form of US Savings Bonds.

So, if that's not what you mean, what are you referring to?

so then whats your plan? federalize everything? Again, I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean "federalize" Social Security by making it a government savings, investment, and benefit disbursement system? If so, that's what it is today. By "everything," do you mean all forms of retirement savings and disability insurance? If so, the answer is no. No one proposes such an approach.

There are two issues here. One is the long-term solvency of social security, i.e. its ability to pay benefits at current levels and current rates of growth. There are a number of ways to accomplish that. One could, for example, simply return to the tax rates of 4 years ago and devote the revenue to social security. The result would eliminate the problem. Another would be to raise the retirement age to 67 or 70 years for future retirees under 50 years of age. Another would be to raise the cap of FICA taxes beyond its current level of about $90K per year of income. And still another would be to reduce benefits for retirees with high incomes. A variety of combinations of these approaches would eliminate the supposed "bankruptcy" of the system in 2042.

The other issue is privatization of accounts. This does nothing to eliminate the "solvency" problem. It's simplly a way for the ideologues of the Bush Administration to eliminate or reduce the importance of social security for retirees and place greater reliance on private retirement plans. The argument for such an approach is that it would trade low risk for higher returns. Unfortunately, it would also create a massive multi-trillion dollar deficit in payments to current and near term retirees that would have to be made up by younger workers.

Would it work? Only as long as economic growth is so staggering that the deficits could be easily paid. And if that's the case, there would be no reason to tinker with Social Security in the first place because workers would have considerable surpluses to invest in their retirements outside the Social Security system.

I find it collassally humorous that the Republican party is still spouting "we're not about big government and big governemnt expenditures"

Meanwhile, Bush has added more employees and more to the federal bureaucracy than the last three presidents COMBINED and has taken us from balanced budgets with billions in surplus to setting record after record for debt levels.

Something ain't washing here.

Yeah, it's a little something called the aftermath of 9/11.

Seriously, anyone who thinks social security isn't in trouble needs to wake up. My parents are part of the baby boom generation who is on the verge of being eligible for social security. When the number of people drawing funds from social security outweighs the number of people putting in...., the system collapses. We need to fix it now. I'm not suggesting ANY idea I've heard yet is a good one, I know the message the dems are putting out of "everything is fine" is akin to Baghdad Bob (the Iraqi spokesman) saying that there are no troops in Baghdad when you can see them rolling down the streets in tanks.

These days there are a lot more retirement plans and options, and people plan for this. I would much rather have contol of MY MONEY. It is MY MONEY and shouldn't be just thrown at a BROKEN SYSTEM in hopes that it will fix it self.

I truly beleive that I can control, spend and invest my money a hell of a lot better than the government. I for one resent paying social security. I've only had a 401k and I've already seen bigger gains than anything I'll ever get out of SS. Imagine if I could take the money I'm paying into SS (my money that they're supposed to give back later) and put it into my 401k.

Oh, and if you think that the president is the only one performing in front of sympathetic audiences, you need to take a good look at the audiences the democrats are using. PR and spin is used by BOTH sides.

...

...When the number of people drawing funds from social security outweighs the number of people putting in...., the system collapses. We need to fix it now. I'm not suggesting ANY idea I've heard yet is a good one, I know the message the dems are putting out of "everything is fine" is akin to Baghdad Bob (the Iraqi spokesman) saying that there are no troops in Baghdad when you can see them rolling down the streets in tanks.... Who wrote this? You or your squirrel? Let's begin with the notion that Democrats have maintained that "everything is fine." In his 1999 State of the Union address, President Clinton had this to say.

"Clinton observed that 'for the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced.' Predicting that the nation would have budget surpluses for the next 25 years, the president said the primary use of the surplus should be protecting the Social Security system. By 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032 the trust fund will be exhausted, he said.

Clinton proposed committing 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years -- an estimated $2.7 trillion -- to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do. 'This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years," he said.'


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/sotu.post/


Now, Clinton was wrong about several things. First, what happened to the budget surplus that Clinton recommended be partially invested in Social Security? Well according to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office 60% of it disappeared in the Bush tax cuts. oops...


Thus, repealing the Bush tax cuts and dedicating the increased revenue to Social Security would make up the shortfall, even with the ballooning deficits created by the Bush administration.


He was also wrong about the date at which the trust fund would be exhausted. He couldn't take account of the economic growth that occurred in the last two years of his administration, pushing that date out to 2043.


Also, note that Clinton recommended "investing a small portion" of the revenue in "the private sector." This, however, is radically different from Bush's plan to remove significant contributions from the Social Security system, altogether; a plan designed to "bankrupt" the system intentionally.


So much for the "dems" "putting out the message that everything is fine." Now let's move on to the next points.



These days there are a lot more retirement plans and options, and people plan for this. I would much rather have contol of MY MONEY. It is MY MONEY and shouldn't be just thrown at a BROKEN SYSTEM in hopes that it will fix it self. The system isn't "broken." It is working exactly as it was designed to operate. During periods (such as now) when contributions exceed benefits, the additional revenue is invested in government securities. In periods where benefits exceed contributions, such as the the early years of the program and prospectively in the period after 2015, or so, the program draws on those investments to pay benefits. That's not broken. It's the way it's supposed to operate.

It is certainly true that prudence dictates that changes in the system be undertaken every now and then, just as they have been over the life of Social Security, to protect its solvency. That doesn't mean it's "broken;" it simply indicates that with demographic and economic changes the system needs to be modified at the margins to maintain its solvency.

I truly beleive that I can control, spend and invest my money a hell of a lot better than the government. I for one resent paying social security. I've only had a 401k and I've already seen bigger gains than anything I'll ever get out of SS. Imagine if I could take the money I'm paying into SS (my money that they're supposed to give back later) and put it into my 401k. Good for you and your investment savvy. I assume you must have pulled your 401K funds out of the stock market prior to its collapse in 2001-2. Very smart of you. Because virtually everyone who had their 401K funds in private investments during this period watched their retirement funds diminish significantly. Oh..wait...perhaps you didn't have a lot of funds in your 401K way back in 2001, four years ago. I'm SO surprised.

Those a bit older than you (or with a memory longer than 3 years) are aware that the stock market can go down as well as up. Prudent investment for retirement typically involves selection of low risk (and therefore low return) investments over a long period of time.

It should be noted, by the way, that the President's plan requires that you pay back the Social Security system any investment return you manage to get, up to the return provided for those still in the system. And if you don't manage to match that return, then, gee...you get nothing. (And experience in several states and other countries that have instituted such plans indicates that the chances are just as great that you'll lose money as that you'll make good investments. oops.) (Citations available on request.)

And contrary to your notion that you have money in SS that "they're supposed to give back," that's not the way it works now and never has been. As noted, you contribute to benefits that go to pooled investments and benefits. When you retire or become incapacitated, others will do the same.

Oh, and if you think that the president is the only one performing in front of sympathetic audiences, you need to take a good look at the audiences the democrats are using. PR and spin is used by BOTH sides. No question that Bush would be performing in front of "sympathetic audiences" even without screening the audience and strong arming those who speak up in opposition to his policies. However, if you can point out a single instance of Democrats limiting the audience to those who agree with their position or using security guards to throw out those who express disagreement, you're welcome to post such evidence.

I thought not.

These days there are a lot more retirement plans and options, and people plan for this. I would much rather have contol of MY MONEY. It is MY MONEY and shouldn't be just thrown at a BROKEN SYSTEM in hopes that it will fix it self.

I truly beleive that I can control, spend and invest my money a hell of a lot better than the government. I for one resent paying social security. I've only had a 401k and I've already seen bigger gains than anything I'll ever get out of SS. Imagine if I could take the money I'm paying into SS (my money that they're supposed to give back later) and put it into my 401k.



I think spending $2,000,000,000 to change systems is throwing money at a broken system. There is not as much of a problem with SS as people think. Long term simulations (20+ years) are not very good predictors of reality. There is just too much extraneous stuff going on to have a good idea of what will happen. That being said, we can do all of what jsh said, but personally I would favor cutting benefits for people who don't need SS, and raising the retirement age.

Now to discuss the new system. SS is an insurance system, and therefore needs to be low risk. You can't simply put money where you want and have a magical no lose situation. The government also keeps at least 50% of "your money" once you have invested it, and cuts benefits by 30%, which combined doesn't give you very much back, so that you have less unless you do extremely well. Clinton moved the SS system away from bankruptcy and it can be continued.

...SS is an insurance system, and therefore needs to be low risk...You've put your finger on the problem of defining what is going on here. You're correct; Social Security is, in fact, an insurance system, not a retirement "investment" system.

Consider, for example, your medical insurance. If you pay your premiums and don't get sick you don't expect to be reimbursed for what you've paid. You pay into a pool in order to spread the risk of illness and expect to be compensated if you get sick by others who also have paid into the system.

Likewise, social security is a collective taxation system, much like paying your school taxes. You pay school taxes whether or not you have children in the school system. Your contributions don't constitute an "account" upon which you may draw for your child's education. Instead, you expect others to contribute when your child goes to school.

The Bush plan is simply one more example of the far right's effort to dismantle such collective risk and collective benefit systems. The US already has a fairly tattered collective "safety net" for individuals compared to virtually all other industrial countries.

This reflects the prevailing American view that it is better to provide opportunity for success than insurance against failure in the society. So be it. That doesn't mean, however, that virtually all forms of socially mandated insurance should be eliminated. The effort to dismantle social security is part of the same effort to do so that also includes such policies as the bankruptcy "reform" bill before the US Senate and efforts to eliminate jury awards for damages masquerading as tort "reform."

Fortunately, in this case, at least, the public appears to understand that eliminating insurance isn't a good deal either for themselves or for the society as a whole.

There are two issues here. One is the long-term solvency of social security, i.e. its ability to pay benefits at current levels and current rates of growth. There are a number of ways to accomplish that. One could, for example, simply return to the tax rates of 4 years ago and devote the revenue to social security. The result would eliminate the problem.Translation: Put the large hand of government back in my pocket and pull out more of my hard earned income, after only recently returning a fractional amount back by lowering taxes.
Another would be to raise the retirement age to 67 or 70 years for future retirees under 50 years of age. Translation: After my employer and I contribute hundreds of thousands to this corrupt system, my opportunity to begin receiving funds is pushed back even further, thus guaranteeing I will never receive anything close to what I put in.
Another would be to raise the cap of FICA taxes beyond its current level of about $90K per year of income. Translation: Let's just extort it from the rich. Why the F not. Raise my, and the top 6% taxpayers taxes by a few more thousands each year, into a system we will never be able to utilize.

And still another would be to reduce benefits for retirees with high incomes.Translation: This one is a real combo/killer. After managing ones finances, savings and career, over a lifetime and contributing hundreds of thousands into the ironically named social security program, let’s have the class envy crowd determine that “the rich” can just forgo their just as hard earned contribution, and receive no or few benefits.

Please Mr. Jsh sir … may I have another.

Cheers,
Oranje

Translation: Put the large hand of government back in my pocket and pull out more of my hard earned income, after only recently returning a fractional amount back by lowering taxes.


If it's just a fractional amount of money the tax cuts gave you, no big deal to repeal eh?


Translation: After my employer and I contribute hundreds of thousands to this corrupt system, my opportunity to begin receiving funds is pushed back even further, thus guaranteeing I will never receive anything close to what I put in.
Translation: Let's just extort it from the rich. Why the F not. Raise my, and the top 6% taxpayers taxes by a few more thousands each year, into a system we will never be able to utilize.


You are aware that the government keeps the majority of the money in your account right? If you don't get good investment returns you get nothing and the government keeps it all. If you do well, you only get a 30% slash in benefits from all the hundred of thousands you've put in. You still take a large benefit cut under the new system.


Translation: This one is a real combo/killer. After managing ones finances, savings and career, over a lifetime and contributing hundreds of thousands into the ironically named social security program, let’s have the class envy crowd determine that “the rich” can just forgo their just as hard earned contribution, and receive no or few benefits.


That's how insurance works. Go yell at the life insurance agencies you paid and never got your money back from because you didn't die. Go yell at your medical insurance company because you never really got sick enough for it. Go and yell at your government because you never became poor.

You've put your finger on the problem of defining what is going on here. You're correct; Social Security is, in fact, an insurance system, not a retirement "investment" system. An interesting attempt to mask this ponzi scheme as an insurance policy. Using the life insurance analogy, everyone pays the premium; everyone dies, everyone recieves the payout.

With SS, everyone pays (some far more than others), everyone retires (or dies before), and only some recieve benefits that might come close to their "premimums". Vast numbers of others will not.
The Bush plan is simply one more example of the far right's effort to dismantle such collective risk and collective benefit systems. Far right or collective common sense comrade?

Cheers,
Oranje

Translation: Put the large hand of government back in my pocket and pull out more of my hard earned income, after only recently returning a fractional amount back by lowering taxes. Well, as a citizen of the US you pay less of your income in taxes than the citizens of virtually any other industrial nation; the Bush tax cuts only increased that difference. Further, you might want to note that the greatest sustained period of economic growth in American history followed the Clinton tax increase of 1993.

No question that if you're in the upper few percent of income earners in the US that repeal of the Bush tax cuts will take a bite out of your monthly check. On the other hand, if you're in the bottom 95% of the income curve, it won't make a noticeable difference in your annual income.

After all, folks seemed to be much happier with their finances in 2000 than currently. Wonder why that is.

Translation: After my employer and I contribute hundreds of thousands to this corrupt system, my opportunity to begin receiving funds is pushed back even further, thus guaranteeing I will never receive anything close to what I put in. The current retirement age for Social Security was set when the average lifespan of Americans was less than 65 years of age. Raising the retirement age only recognizes the incredible increase in Americans' longevity, due primarily to the effects of another Federal program called Medicare.

Translation: Let's just extort it from the rich. Why the F not. Raise my, and the top 6% taxpayers taxes by a few more thousands each year, into a system we will never be able to utilize. Sorry, but an increase in the cap on FICA taxes simply recognizes the significant increase in the earnings of those at the top of the income pyramid, due primarily, by the way to the economic growth that took place during Clinton administration.

Translation: This one is a real combo/killer. After managing ones finances, savings and career, over a lifetime and contributing hundreds of thousands into the ironically named social security program, let’s have the class envy crowd determine that “the rich” can just forgo their just as hard earned contribution, and receive no or few benefits. Actually, I'm not especially fond of limiting the benefits for the wealthy, simply because it tends to transform Social Security from universal coverage to a system that more closely resembles welfare for the elderly. In general, its better that everyone have a stake in the system. Of course, virtually any of the other changes would eliminate the need for this one.

You are aware that the government keeps the majority of the money in your account right? If you don't get good investment returns you get nothing and the government keeps it all. If you do well, you only get a 30% slash in benefits from all the hundred of thousands you've put in. You still take a large benefit cut under the new system.
That's how insurance works. Go yell at the life insurance agencies you paid and never got your money back from because you didn't die. Go yell at your medical insurance company because you never really got sick enough for it. Go and yell at your government because you never became poor.

So if I don't get me a good return, I gets nuthin and the government keeps it all?

I did not know that. I shall return to the fine print of the proposed legislation and perhaps consider changing my opinion.

I'm off to go yell at insurance "agencies" or the goverment, or er umm something :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Oranje

You are aware that the government keeps the majority of the money in your account right? If you don't get good investment returns you get nothing and the government keeps it all. If you do well, you only get a 30% slash in benefits from all the hundred of thousands you've put in. You still take a large benefit cut under the new system.I hate to take issue with a political ally's post, but this demands correction. The federal government requires private pensions to be "funded," meaning that they will, in fact, have a big pile of money invested, which, if the plan were closed today (meaning no more new participants, no more contributions, no more benefits vesting), and assuming that the investment assumptions for that big pile of money turn out to be correct, the big pile of money will produce the cash needed to pay all beneifts for the lifetime of the beneficiaries of that plan.

Social Secuirty, OTOH, is not funded. There is no "account" for a participant with money sitting there collecting interest. It is almost completely a "pay as you go" system, meaning that the money taken out of your paycheck today pays the benefits mailed out in, like, December. The vaunted "Social Security Trust Funds" in fact only hold a few month's worth of benefit payments.

This is the fundamental problem with the system. When I first went to work at Social Security as an actuary in 1976, they already knew that there were both serious short-term problems and serious long-term problems with the system. The short-term problems were pretty easy, and painless, to fix. The long-term problem was not. Simply put, during the working time of my generation, the balance of "payers" to beneficiaries would drop from thre-to-one two-to-one, meaning that for every beneficiary, there would be only two workers contributing to pay the benefits of that beneficiary.

You don't have to be an actuary to know that that's a problem, and a growing one.

Another problem is the longevity of the beneficiaries. When Social Security was first instituted, people didn't live so long. Now they live much longer. This is an actuarial problem for any pension plan, but moreso for one totally unfunded like Social Security. Now, the typical beneficiary will receive benefits for perhaps 20 years, where it used to be five. A big problem.

So, it is necessary, in order for the system not to completely run out of money, to do a combination of (i) raise tax rates, (ii) raise the "wage base," (iii) raise retirement age, and (iv) reduce benefits.

Now, what Bush is doing is, essentially, proposing to start an entirely new system, and he wants to siphon off money from the present system in order to do so. This does not "save" Social Security, but, obviously, exacerbates the looming problems, by reducing the cash going into the system by 10% (remember, there are no "accounts," and reducing the cash going in inevitably accelerates the cash-starved condition of Social Security. He's completely igoring, in public, the inexorible result, which will be a crisis in Social Security much sooner. There still will be the same four ways to deal with that in the existing system, but raising taxes and raising the wage base probably will not be nearly enough because of the huge loss of income, so the most likely result will be to drastically cut benefits and raise the retirement age (thereby significantly dismantling the present system, as he obviously wants to do).

My problem, as is so often the case with Bush, is that he's simply not telling the truth when he calls this "saving Social Security." He's playing on fears (a specialty of this administration) in order to begin the dismantling of Social Security, presumably because his idealogy hates any income-shifting program, and has always hated Social Security.

If he had the political courage to say that that's what he's doing, at least I could respect the intellectual honesty. But, that clearly isn't going to happen.

An interesting attempt to mask this ponzi scheme as an insurance policy. Using the life insurance analogy, everyone pays the premium; everyone dies, everyone recieves the payout. Sorry, no cigar. In the first place you'll note that I compared SS to medical insurance and education taxes, not to life insurance. But even using your analogy, the comparison doesn't hold. Insurance companies are free to determine their pools and deny coverage (or increase premiums) to anyone whose payout is likely to exceed their premiums (plus a portion of the investment that the insurance company derives from the premiums.)

Those who die and "receive the payout" are those that an insurance company has determined (based on actuarial probability) won't make a dent in their profits. If, in fact, insurance companies were forced to accept all applicants and price their policies without regard to the relative risk of policyholders, they'd face precisely the same challenges as Social Security.

With SS, everyone pays (some far more than others), everyone retires (or dies before), and only some recieve benefits that might come close to their "premimums". Vast numbers of others will not. Again, if you insist on defining Social Security as a personal investment system, it's not a very good one. Nor was it ever meant to be. It is a system designed to supplement private retirement savings and income and to assure that elderly recipients receive benefits roughly in accord with prevailing wages at the point of retirement.

This approach is based on the notion, much like Medicare, that the society as a whole benefits from having an elderly population whose wellbeing is not dependent upon inherited wealth or the vagaries of economic fluctuations during their working years.

The alternative view is that having a significant portion of the elderly dying in the streets provides a worthwhile object lesson for the working population, leading them to forego consumption and devote a greater portion of their incomes to retirement savings.

Clearly, you favor one approach; most Americans favor another.

Far right or collective common sense comrade? Sorry, friend, but the world is not simply divided between those with "common sense" and socialists. It's a very broad spectrum in which some folks believe that market mechanisms are useful social tools in some instances and not applicable in others.

I hate to take issue with a political ally's post... I also hate to take issue with a political ally's (and friend's) post, but I'll add a bit of a qualification, despite my trepidation at crossing (paper) swords with a former SS actuary. :)

This is the fundamental problem with the system. When I first went to work at Social Security as an actuary in 1976, they already knew that there were both serious short-term problems and serious long-term problems with the system. The short-term problems were pretty easy, and painless, to fix. The long-term problem was not. Simply put, during the working time of my generation, the balance of "payers" to beneficiaries would drop from three-to-one two-to-one, meaning that for every beneficiary, there would be only two workers contributing to pay the benefits of that beneficiary. You don't have to be an actuary to know that that's a problem, and a growing one. This is an oft-cited statistic and it does capture a real risk for the system. It fails, however, to take account of two factors. First, it assumes a constant level of productivity, such that it will always require three workers to fund a single retiree's benefits. Clearly this is not the case and the massive increases in worker productivity that have occurred (and continue) over the last 20 years were unrecognized back in 1976.

Second, related to the first factor is that with increasing productivity presumably comes greater incomes for the working population and potentially greater contributions to SS without eliminating the value of that productivity increase. Unfortunately, the distribution of income that has come with such productivity increases haven't been well distributed, but concentrated at the top of the income scale (compared to earlier periods of American history.) Thus, in order to take advantage of increased productivity the distribution of the income that results must be more widely shared.

Another problem is the longevity of the beneficiaries. When Social Security was first instituted, people didn't live so long. Now they live much longer. This is an actuarial problem for any pension plan, but moreso for one totally unfunded like Social Security. Now, the typical beneficiary will receive benefits for perhaps 20 years, where it used to be five. A big problem.

So, it is necessary, in order for the system not to completely run out of money, to do a combination of (i) raise tax rates, (ii) raise the "wage base," (iii) raise retirement age, and (iv) reduce benefits. All true. It's especially noteworthy that Americans' desire to have a 20-30 year retirement without paying for it that makes any reforms difficult to enact. That applies, by the way, to the shredding of the system proposed by Bush as well as to any legitimate efforts to preserve and strengthen the system.

Now, what Bush is doing is, essentially, proposing to start an entirely new system, and he wants to siphon off money from the present system in order to do so. This does not "save" Social Security, but, obviously, exacerbates the looming problems, by reducing the cash going into the system by 10% (remember, there are no "accounts," and reducing the cash going in inevitably accelerates the cash-starved condition of Social Security. He's completely igoring, in public, the inexorible result, which will be a crisis in Social Security much sooner. There still will be the same four ways to deal with that in the existing system, but raising taxes and raising the wage base probably will not be nearly enough because of the huge loss of income, so the most likely result will be to drastically cut benefits and raise the retirement age (thereby significantly dismantling the present system, as he obviously wants to do). Again, all true. The current administration has placed its hopes on promoting generational warfare in which younger voters (who pay little attention to the details of his plans) focus exclusively on the opportunity to generate a higher return for their retirement without actually paying for it.

If he had the political courage to say that that's what he's doing, at least I could respect the intellectual honesty. But, that clearly isn't going to happen. Intellectual honesty is anathema to the current administration. Examples of "intellectual dishonesty" are so numerous as to boggle the imagination.

I also hate to take issue with a political ally's (and friend's) post, but I'll add a bit of a qualification, despite my trepidation at crossing (paper) swords with a former SS actuary. :)

This is an oft-cited statistic and it does capture a real risk for the system. It fails, however, to take account of two factors. First, it assumes a constant level of productivity, such that it will always require three workers to fund a single retiree's benefits. Clearly this is not the case and the massive increases in worker productivity that have occurred (and continue) over the last 20 years were unrecognized back in 1976. Productivity is irrelevant; wages are the only thing that's relevant, since the system is funded by today's wages going into next month's check. If productivity were matched by wage increases, and increases in the wage base, this woule be relevant.

Second, related to the first factor is that with increasing productivity presumably comes greater incomes for the working population and potentially greater contributions to SS without eliminating the value of that productivity increase. Unfortunately, the distribution of income that has come with such productivity increases haven't been well distributed, but concentrated at the top of the income scale (compared to earlier periods of American history.) Thus, in order to take advantage of increased productivity the distribution of the income that results must be more widely shared. True, but, again, without a large increase in the wage base, this does not result in more money going into the system.

Unfortunately, I've got to go to a wedding, then put a sway bar in my car for tomorrow's autocross (I hate to introduce car things on a car forum :p ), so I won't be able to participate in this important thread for some hours.

So if I don't get me a good return, I gets nuthin and the government keeps it all?

I did not know that. I shall return to the fine print of the proposed legislation and perhaps consider changing my opinion.

I'm off to go yell at insurance "agencies" or the goverment, or er umm something :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Oranje

Washington Post
02/02/05
"Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits"

Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system.

The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before President Bush's State of the Union address, would hold down the cost of Bush's plan to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system. But it could come as a surprise to lawmakers and voters who have thought of these accounts as akin to an individual retirement account or a 401(k) that they could use fully upon retirement.

• OPTIONS: Workers would be able to choose among several stock, bond and mixed-investment funds.

• LIMITATIONS: Participants would have no access to the accounts before retirement and could not borrow against the balance.

• AT RETIREMENT: Participants would be required to buy annuities to ensure steady payments out of the accounts over a lifetime.

"You'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children . . . or grandchildren," Bush said last night. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.

That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.

In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.

"I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account so you can build a nest egg for your own future," Bush said in his speech.

Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."

Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.

If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.

With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.

If instead, workers decide to stay in the traditional system, they would receive the benefit that Social Security could pay out of payroll taxes still flowing into the system, the official said. Which option would be best is still unclear because the White House has yet to propose how [much] guaranteed benefits would be cut for those with individual accounts.

The administration official explained that the "benefit offset" merely ensures that those who choose personal accounts are not given an unfair advantage over the traditional system.

Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts investment executive who served on the president's Social Security Commission, said the mechanism makes sense. Workers who draw money out of the Social Security system for their accounts should have to pay that money back with interest.

"They hope people will think they will take on these accounts and after 40 years, they'll have this huge windfall, but that won't happen," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "I think they're trying to confuse people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...eb2.html?sub=AR

In summary, I should be thankful to have a system unlike other industrial socialist countries (where unemployment runs 15%) and appreciate our “oh so low” tax rates here in the U.S.

I should yearn for the good old days of the slick William era, where tax increases were largely unnoticed during a normal up business cycle, bolstered by corporate criminal Enron type activities and an internet high tech bubble, that all went “poof” in the last ten months of WJC years.

I should extend a willingness to have 60%, no let’s say 80% of my income redirected by the oppressive majority of taxpayers who pay little in to our system, yet have an ever increasing appetite for costly government programs to meet all of their demands and desires.

And finally,
The alternative view is that having a significant portion of the elderly dying in the streets provides a worthwhile object lesson for the working population, leading them to forego consumption and devote a greater portion of their incomes to retirement savings.What argument from the left would be complete without the vision of children, the elderly, or your favorite pet “dying in the streets”? :eek: Hilarious

Cheers,
Oranje

Unfortunately, I've got to go to a wedding, then put a sway bar in my car for tomorrow's autocross (I hate to introduce car things on a car forum) hey cut that out :D

...

"They hope people will think they will take on these accounts and after 40 years, they'll have this huge windfall, but that won't happen," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "I think they're trying to confuse people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...eb2.html?sub=AR Trying to confuse people? Really??? Well, there was that little "confusion" over WMD's, and the little "confusion" over Saddam being involved in 9/11, and the little "confusion" over Iraq harboring terrorists, and the little "confusion" over Bush's "Clear Skies" pro-pollution initiative, and the little "confusion" over memos authorizing torture of prisoners, and the little "confusion" over the President's contention that Americans could be held indefinitely without charges or trials, and the little "confusion" over "Mission Accomplished."

But you don't think this could be an effort "to confuse people," do you?

When I first went to work at Social Security as an actuary in 1976

Yikes, I can't get away from pension actuaries even on my day off. :)

Actually, we're now getting somewhere with your posts and those of jsh1120. I'm not going to wear out my finger tips by trying to add to what you guys have already said here. I already need a new eyeglass prescription from reading all of the recent Social Security documentation I've saved on my office computer, and I think that, collectively, the two of you have hit on the important considerations and the canard being pushed upon the American public by the administration. Fortunately, Dubya's proposals, even if watered down, will probably be D.O.A. in Congress, particularly if anyone wants to be re-elected in 2006.

In summary, I should be thankful to have a system unlike other industrial socialist countries (where unemployment runs 15%) and appreciate our “oh so low” tax rates here in the U.S. Care to cite other "industrial socialist countries (where unemployment runs 15%)"? I thought not.

And finally,
What argument from the left would be complete without the vision of children, the elderly, or your favorite pet “dying in the streets”? :eek: Hilarious Well, let's see. In 1965 over 30% of those over 65 had incomes that placed them in the official category of "poverty." Thirty years later, that percentage was less than 10%. Ah...for the good old days where the elderly dined on cat food and provided an object lesson for the young.

Washington Post
02/02/05 "Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits"

Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system. ... And there you have it folks. Proof positive in an article, by the icon of the "eastern establishment press.” which purports to be based on an unnamed “senior administration official” ;)

These "new findings" are commented on in a truly balanced presentation by...

Dr. Orzag, an economics studies product from Princeton, current research professor, Georgetown University, who lost his fed paycheck after his eight years of employment with federal government expired in 2000, coinciding with the collapse of the Clinton administration..

Commented on by Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research and …

Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts (read bluest of blue states) investment executive and economic affairs adviser to the Governor Mitt “I wish there were more than six republicans in Massachusetts” Romney.

That's it --- I’m convinced :D

Perhaps you all would be swayed to my view if I used the latest insight from Ann Coulter for you to consider? Just a thought.

Cheers,
Oranje

Care to cite other "industrial socialist countries (where unemployment runs 15%)"? I thought not. Permission to retract and rephrase your honor? My apologies for the 3-5% variance. :o which makes my point invalid how?
Germany's jobless total rose above five million in January.
BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- Germany's jobless total rose above five million in January for the first time since the 1930s, a labor office source has said, highlighting the main threat to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's 2006 re-election bid …

The source said the rise put the unadjusted jobless rate at 12.1 percent …

French Jobless Rate Hits 10 Percent
PARIS, France (AP) -- France said Friday that its jobless rate reached 10 percent in January for the first time in five years, dealing a setback to the government's economic program and a fresh blow to embattled Finance Minister Herve Gaymard.

Insee, France's national statistics institute, said unemployment edged up to 10 percent in January after five months at 9.9 percent as the number of people out of work rose to 2.72 million from 2.69 million in December.
Cheers,
Oranje

Perhaps you all would be swayed to my view if I used the latest insight from Ann Coulter for you to consider?

Odd word combination in the same sentence. :D ;)

I find it collassally humorous that the Republican party is still spouting "we're not about big government and big governemnt expenditures"

Meanwhile, Bush has added more employees and more to the federal bureaucracy than the last three presidents COMBINED and has taken us from balanced budgets with billions in surplus to setting record after record for debt levels.

Something ain't washing here.
I think you've got some things mixed up. First off adding employees to governmenr does not mean they are using more federalized programs or even promoting them. Second, Clinton ran a surplus for 3 years. Each year he was plus about 130 million or so(correct me if I'm wrong). The other five years of his presidency he was in debt to. When he left office, there was 3.2 trillion dollars in debt, so I don't know what "kool-aid" parties you've been attending that told you about these billions we had in surplus. I'm surprised no one else caught that.

And there you have it folks. Proof positive in an article, by the icon of the "eastern establishment press.” which purports to be based on an unnamed “senior administration official” ;)

These "new findings" are commented on in a truly balanced presentation by...

Dr. Orzag, an economics studies product from Princeton, current research professor, Georgetown University, who lost his fed paycheck after his eight years of employment with federal government expired in 2000, coinciding with the collapse of the Clinton administration..

Commented on by Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research and …

Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts (read bluest of blue states) investment executive and economic affairs adviser to the Governor Mitt “I wish there were more than six republicans in Massachusetts” Romney.

That's it --- I’m convinced :D

Perhaps you all would be swayed to my view if I used the latest insight from Ann Coulter for you to consider? Just a thought.

Cheers,
Oranje
You forgot to mention the least reliable source in the article, President Bush :p

They have two administration officials describing the mechanism, and one of them supports it explicitly in the article. They also have Bush comment on the mechanism. The Washington Post (a reliable news source) would have you castrated for comparing them to Ann Coulter.

Pozen was on the SS Comission, supports the mechanism, and is an investment excutive (thus the plan will benefit him). If he is liberal and supports it, that's fine. It would be like Reps critisizing Zell Miller's speech at the GOP convention because it was pro-Democrat.

Really, if an unknown source is ok as a basis for war it should be ok for an article, especially with other named sources, right? ;)

I might be swayed to your view that this is an incorrect description of the mechanism if you could show something from a reliable news source like:

Newsweek, Time, New Yorker, US News & World Report, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times, Washington Post, The Economicist, or an equally recognized source of outstanding credit. If these are all the "Eastern Establishment Press" then maybe the whole world is too liberally biased for you :p. Town Hall or Talon News are not acceptable sources.

The Washington Post (a reliable news source) would have you castrated for comparing them to Ann Coulter. Do they do that? :eek: That would explain so much of their "no balls" nameless inside sources approach to journalism. :D

If these are all the "Eastern Establishment Press" then maybe the whole world is too liberally biased for you :p. Ding. We have a winner!!! :p

In the end, what appears to be the only offering from the left:

1. Sling feces at whatever ideas the Republican Administration, Republican House and Republican Senate (boy I like writing those words) puts forth to fix/alter/improve an outdated system, originally premised on good intent, but lacking any process control -- because “saving” this liberal of all liberal programs, by a Republican, is absolutely unthinkable by the left.

And/Or

2. Ignore or minimize the problem and offer, as only the left can, reduction of benefits and five different ways to raise taxes on the few, or even the many, to pay for good intent, however inefficient.

Cheers,
Oranje

Do they do that? :eek: That would explain so much of their "no balls" nameless inside sources approach to journalism. :D

Where do you think all the Democrats came from? They're castrated ex-Republicans, which explains why all the Democrats lately seem to have no balls and can't stand up for their beliefs :D.


Ding. We have a winner!!! :p

In the end, what appears to be the only offering from the left:

1. Sling feces at whatever ideas the Republican Administration, Republican House and Republican Senate (boy I like writing those words) puts forth to fix/alter/improve an outdated system, originally premised on good intent, but lacking any process control -- because “saving” this liberal of all liberal programs, by a Republican, is absolutely unthinkable by the left.

And/Or

2. Ignore or minimize the problem and offer, as only the left can, reduction of benefits and five different ways to raise taxes on the few, or even the many, to pay for good intent, however inefficient.

Cheers,
Oranje

Us, raise taxes? Where you planning on getting your cool two trillion from? Tax cuts? Where are you going to come up with the billions it takes to keep the privitized system from functioning. Chile, our supposed model, has had to dump billions into their system to keep it working after the transition. You can't have the best of all worlds: no tax increase to help pay for the government, an inexpensive system to run, and increased benefits. How about producing some real explanation of the mechanism contrary to the one I quoted, instead of just flinging feces at it.

Permission to retract and rephrase your honor? My apologies for the 3-5% variance. :o which makes my point invalid how?

Cheers,
Oranje Thanks, much. I asked because I wondered what "socialist" countries you had in mnd. And for the record your "3%-5% variance," is in fact a 20%-50% overestimate of the proportion of unemployed in France and Germany. Of course, as we've already established, arithmetic is something you'd rather avoid in this discussion.

It is true that unemployment rates are traditionally somewhat higher than the US during periods of relatively high worldwide unemployment. There are a number of reasons for this including the willingness of Europeans to support longer unemployment benefits than the US. Over 1/2 the difference between the US and other nations, however, is due to the fact that the US stops counting people as unemployed once their benefits are exhausted and they stop looking for work through official channels, an approach that European nations for some reason believe is leads to an unrealistic picture of employment.

A European calculation of American unemployment would put our current rate at between 8.5 and 9.0% rather than the official 5.5%.

As to how it "invalidates your point," well, your "point" appears to have been that your belief that adequate an adequate social safety net would require you to "extend a willingness to have 60%, no let’s say 80% of my income redirected" to fund such a system.

Again, however, your hyperbolic rhetoric goes far beyond reality. Not only is the economics of European policy far more successful than you originally granted in controlling unemployment, Europeans pay far less than you apparently believe is necessary to fund such a system.

In general, Americans pay between 30% and 35% of their incomes, on average, in all taxes. Europeans average between 40% and 45%. For this additional investment they receive health care, more extensive protection from economic dislocation, and substantial social support for a wide range of behaviors including child rearing. The countries in question are not, of course, "socialist," but your definitions are apparently as faulty as your arithmetic.

You may well not prefer such an approach. Many Americans do not. However, to claim that unemploment in Europe is 20% to 50% higher than it actually is and to claim that adequate funding of social security might call for you to sacrifice between 60% and 80% of your income, when a number of nations manage to provide an adequate safety net for one-half to two-thirds of that amount, is intellectually dishonest.

That's dishonesty, i.e. a purposeful attempt to make a point with cooked data. It stands in rather sharp contrast to the article in the Washington Post that only pointed out that any plan that Bush puts forward would require participants to match the return provided by the public investments of Social Security to justify opting out of the system.

Of course, if you can come up with some other approach that wouldn't lead to even more trillions of dollars lost for Social Security, I'm sure the current administration would love to hear from you. But given your record of arithmetic efforts, I'd suggest you might want to brush up before offering your plan.

Care to cite other "industrial socialist countries (where unemployment runs 15%)"? I thought not.

Well, let's see. In 1965 over 30% of those over 65 had incomes that placed them in the official category of "poverty." Thirty years later, that percentage was less than 10%. Ah...for the good old days where the elderly dined on cat food and provided an object lesson for the young.



You my friend have replace lespaul as my hero on this site......

Why is it that our "red" friends refuse the cold, hard facts....I mean, not a slant, FACTS, ans instead swallow the swill thrown out there by foxnews and rush limbaugh? Really, it has come to the point that if the white house tells you the world is round...you have to question if it is really flat. :rolleyes:

Oh, I hear the "special" dinner from kennelration is the best...it has a dog bone in it, saves money on tooth paste.

Just curious: Does anyone have a link that shows what percentage of US tax dollars go where?

(Many people talk about cutting taxes, but hardly anyone is talking about cutting spending which should be considered first.)

1. They have two administration officials describing the mechanism, and one of them supports it explicitly in the article. 2. They also have Bush comment on the mechanism. A careful reading ... (which tends to lead to a better understanding of things) shows that:

A. There is only ONE super secret unamed administration official referenced in the article.
B. The comment from said secret person were "supposedly" made "before the state of the union address" on Jan 29.
C. President Bush didn't comment on the dark and menacing "Mechanism". The quotes were taken directly from a speech he made the “night before”.
D. The clever reporter, knowing full well how easy it is to fool some of the people, interspersed said comments, as if to lend credence to something called "The Mechanism"
E. The reporter then got the first three names is his roladex (the lazy puke) to comment on the evil "Mechanism".

This is how things work in DC. Float up a false premise, from a nameless source, as if this thing, this Mechanism, were the centerpiece of what is really just discussions at this point, so that the other side can rail against the false premise and leverage negative opinion against the proposal.

Happy to assist,
Oranje

A careful reading ... (which tends to lead to a better understanding of things) shows that:

A. There is only ONE super secret unamed administration official referenced in the article.
B. The comment from said secret person were "supposedly" made "before the state of the union address" on Jan 29.
C. President Bush didn't comment on the dark and menacing "Mechanism". The quotes were taken directly from a speech he made the “night before”.
D. The clever reporter, knowing full well how easy it is to fool some of the people, interspersed said comments, as if to lend credence to something called "The Mechanism"
E. The reporter then got the first three names is his roladex (the lazy puke) to comment on the evil "Mechanism".

This is how things work in DC. Float up a false premise, from a nameless source, as if this thing, this Mechanism, were the centerpiece of what is really just discussions at this point, so that the other side can rail against the false premise and leverage negative opinion against the proposal.

Happy to assist,
Oranje

A. There is someone who was on Bush's Social Security Commission and who is in favor of "The Mechanism." I counted that as an administration official.

C. Bush gave an outline of how things would work "the government can't take your money away"

D. Then what is the mechanism. Surely you have a White House explanation of what's going on, what program we are looking to spend two trillion on, right? Or do they just not feel like handing out that sort of information either? You've got the fine print you claimed earlier. What is "The Mechanism?"

You my friend have replace lespaul as my hero on this site......

Why is it that our "red" friends refuse the cold, hard facts....I mean, not a slant, FACTS, ans instead swallow the swill thrown out there by foxnews and rush limbaugh?Heck, that's easy. Facts are really inconvenient to idealogues, so they just ignore them.

Just curious: Does anyone have a link that shows what percentage of US tax dollars go where?

(Many people talk about cutting taxes, but hardly anyone is talking about cutting spending which should be considered first.)

Here is what I have for the 2005 Budget in millions of dollars:

Function Title FY 20051
050 National Defense 423,098
150 International Affairs 29,569
250 General Science, Space and Technology 24,459
270 Energy 1,883
300 Natural Resources and Environment 30,286
350 Agriculture 22,353
370 Commerce and Housing Credit 8,092
400 Transportation 69,494
450 Community and Regional Development 12,949
500 Education, Training, Employment and Social Services 91,817
550 Health 248,780
570 Medicare 293,574
600 Income Security 342,324
650 Social Security 516,457
700 Veterans Benefits and Services 65,444
750 Administration of Justice 40,781
800 General Government 19,392
900 Net Interest 177,909
920 Allowances (798)
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (63,108)
Total: 2,354,755

Thanks, much. I asked because I wondered what "socialist" countries you had in mind. And for the record your "3%-5% variance," is in fact a 20%-50% overestimate of the proportion of unemployed in France and Germany. No actually I enjoy math and see you'd like to make an argument based on it. Sadly, I see no point is attempting to match your 500 word response to detail whether the claim of 12% unemployment vs 15% is in fact a delta of 3% -- or a 25% exaggeration which proves ... nothing.

There are in fact conflicting elements of the euro unemploment calculations that tend to ignore entreprenurial segments, offsetting the long termers supposedly lost in our calculations. I tend to think we net closer to 6 than euros 10-12. Before you go all math crazy again, that would be twice as high as we are now, or a 100% increase over our current rate.

The claim stands. Those systems, whether or not you accept the label of socialist states, attempt to have government "safety net" everything and fail in the attempt. While you cleverly throw out "Europeans average between 40% and 45%", (there you go with that math thing again) the high income earners, like me, are already at 60% in their "govt cares for everything -- poorly" system.

My point is you see nothing wrong moving me from 50% to 60%, and would likely continue moving me to 80%.

That's dishonesty, i.e. a purposeful attempt to make a point with cooked data. It stands in rather sharp contrast to the article in the Washington Post that only pointed out that any plan that Bush puts forward would require participants to match the return provided by the public investments of Social Security to justify opting out of the system.

No cooked data here, my friend. I can't help it if you prefer to torturously twist my example to "average rates" across whatever. Oh yeah, you might want to reread that bit o fiction again and reference my "Mechanism" note above.

Cheers,
Oranje

Surely you have a White House explanation of what's going on, what program we are looking to spend two trillion on, right? Or do they just not feel like handing out that sort of information either? You've got the fine print you claimed earlier. What is "The Mechanism?"I have no explanation for the Washington Post floated premise.

If you'd like to know what the Bush administration is actually discussing, proposing, considering, I suggest going to whitehouse.gov and start reading his speeches and other related position papers on the site.

Oh and ... don't call me Shirley :D

Cheers,
Oranje

First of all, if you're paying 60% you need to get a new accountant. All I have heard jsh suggest is moving from 33% to 35%. As one of the many options that he put forth. I'm surprised you've latched onto that and taken such offense to it.

The fact is that the percentage of wealth controlled by the top earners in America is a good deal greater then their share of federal tax burden. And in recent years, the first number has gone up while the second number has gone down. We've gone back to the Reagan years where growth is centered on the $100K question. Is it too much to ask that we try and make sure that all of america is prospering?

The government screws up many things, I won't argue with you there: missile defense shield, KBR kick backs, graft in the defense industry. But there are just as many governmental success stories, they just don't make good print.

I'm fine with giving more to the government, as long as i'm sure that it is toward something. The problem i have with social security is that we already sacrificed for that, but recently we traded it for a tax cut. So I don't see giving up the tax cut as sacrificing at all, just being responsible. But once it's back at 35% I'm against raising it unless there is something that needs sacrificing for...like a war.

As long as we continue deficit spending, our interest payments on the debt increase and that's less money we can spend on everything. What we're doing now is making the minimum payments on our credit card debt and continuing to charge things.

My favorite clip from whitehouse.gov today is from the radio address: "The American people did not place us in office to pass on problems to future generations and future Presidents and future Congresses." Which was pretty funny considering the enormous deficit we've been running. And playing ostrich with the problems in health care.

Bush is one of the best President's this great country has had. Period. End of story. You liberals go on up to Canada where all the frenchies are. You deserve each other.

I agree. Bush's presidency is the work of greatness. In fact I'm starting a petition to begin carving his likeness into Mt. Rushmore, replacing Teddy Roosevelt of course. There he will stand forever with the few who could ever be said to be his peers: Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His ability to create staggering deficits, turn the world against us, and fight for the corporations that make this country great will be immortalized forever.

Bush is one of the best President's this great country has had. Period. End of story. You liberals go on up to Canada where all the frenchies are. You deserve each other.



Well, the truly scary thing is that you can procreate.....

I guess you have no kids over in iraq....'cuse, you know, then it would not be so much fun, having your own family getting killed for......I am sorry, why are we there again?

11 posts, and this is the best you can do :rolleyes:

I agree. Bush's presidency is the work of greatness. In fact I'm starting a petition to begin carving his likeness into Mt. Rushmore, replacing Teddy Roosevelt of course. There he will stand forever with the few who could ever be said to be his peers: Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His ability to create staggering deficits, turn the world against us, and fight for the corporations that make this country great will be immortalized forever.

Ditto, zhizoe. Might be the first time ever that three immortal figures get up and leave a sculpture out of simple shame and embarrassment for being stuck on the same mountain with a complete dolt. Cratica, for your sake, I sure hope that you're wearing your asbestos suit.

Heck, that's easy. Facts are really inconvenient to idealogues, so they just ignore them.

Stew, as many have said before, why let facts stand in the way of a good story (or a good con job)? ;)

I agree. Bush's presidency is the work of greatness. In fact I'm starting a petition to begin carving his likeness into Mt. Rushmore, replacing Teddy Roosevelt of course. There he will stand forever with the few who could ever be said to be his peers: Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His ability to create staggering deficits, turn the world against us, and fight for the corporations that make this country great will be immortalized forever.

I say put him on the $20 instead of Jackson, who tried to kill the Federal Bank during his presidency and is probably rolling in his grave by being on that money anyways. Bush's great handling of economic problems should entitle him to freedom to have his picture on the $20, and if you liberals hate freedoms like that then your just un-American ;).

Bush is one of the best President's this great country has had. Period. End of story. You liberals go on up to Canada where all the frenchies are. You deserve each other.Ah...the intellectual wing of the Republican coalition speaks up.

Ah...the intellectual wing of the Republican coalition speaks up.

Well jsh I thought I would never see the day where you put intellectual and republican in the same sentence. I am damn proud of you and this just proves that there is hope for our friends on the left. Or maybe it was just a fun filled day in the sun up there in the Great Northwest. :)

I say put him on the $20 instead of Jackson, who tried to kill the Federal Bank during his presidency and is probably rolling in his grave by being on that money anyways. Bush's great handling of economic problems should entitle him to freedom to have his picture on the $20, and if you liberals hate freedoms like that then your just un-American ;).

Rotarian, I may have an even better idea since, at the rate he's going, Bush may deny most of us the opportunity to even see something as big as a $20 bill in the future:

Well, the truly scary thing is that you can procreate.....

I guess you have no kids over in iraq....'cuse, you know, then it would not be so much fun, having your own family getting killed for......I am sorry, why are we there again?

11 posts, and this is the best you can do :rolleyes:


And I guess you have not talked to the majority of the servicemembers fighting and willing to go back, because they actually know why. It is a little different story than what is syphoned through the liberal press.

Bush is one of the best President's this great country has had. Period. End of story. You liberals go on up to Canada where all the frenchies are. You deserve each other.Gawd, I love it! In four years, he's turned a budget surplus into record deficits; he's lied his way to making my country an internaional aggressor and pariah; he's worked really hard to let the rest of the world know that he doesn't give a damn what they think. Unfortunately, not end of story.

I really appreciate your reference to "frenchies." One of W's great accomplishments is the invention of the freedom fry, in an idiotic attempt to ridicule a sovereign nation which didn't buy his lies, and didn't want to help him in his aggression.

And I guess you have not talked to the majority of the servicemembers fighting and willing to go back, because they actually know why. It is a little different story than what is syphoned through the liberal press.Would the incredible popularity of the war, and the great willingness of the Bushies to fight in the war, explain why the military is not meeting its recruiting quotas?

Gawd, I love it! In four years, he's turned a budget surplus into record deficits; he's lied his way to making my country an internaional aggressor and pariah; he's worked really hard to let the rest of the world know that he doesn't give a damn what they think. Unfortunately, not end of story.

I really appreciate your reference to "frenchies." One of W's great accomplishments is the invention of the freedom fry, in an idiotic attempt to ridicule a sovereign nation which didn't buy his lies, and didn't want to help him in his aggression.
You guys don't seem to understand this. We are at war whether you like it or not, and wars cost money. Bush didn't come into his term with a surplus, look it up. When he became president, he had a failing economy as a recession was beginning. Clinton left office with over 3 trillion dollars of debt. I think the freedom fry was stupid too, but France along with Russia and others didn't help us because they were making too much money. Oil for food, hint hint. Keep talking about lies. Then keep talking about not showing proof of anything. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Back on topic a bit....

It is worth pointing out, as the right wing trots out its standard charges of commie and socialist, that, when Social Security was first put in, by that great socialist FDR, a significantly higher percentage of the wages were covered by the Social Security wage base than is the case now.

I am perfectly aware that there are a lot of problems with Social Security which need to be faced, but using lies like "I'm saving Social Security" when what he's really doing is trying to gut it, is a pretty low-rent way to go, as usual.

Would the incredible popularity of the war, and the great willingness of the Bushies to fight in the war, explain why the military is not meeting its recruiting quotas?


War is not popular doofus, it is what it is... WAR! We are not Bushies we are Americans. BTW, thanks for not addressing the actual point.

You guys don't seem to understand this. We are at war whether you like it or not, and wars cost money.Unfortunately, I understand it all too well. Bush wanted his war, was willing to do and say anything to get his war, and now he's got it. He's too chicken-sh!t to have the political courage to actually fund the war by raising taxes, so he's just increasing the deficit, since Republicans love deficits.

Bush didn't come into his term with a surplus, look it up. When he became president, he had a failing economy as a recession was beginning.Do you really believe this drivel? There was a surplus in Clinton's last year. Look it up. Surpluses were forecast for the foreseeable future. W lied his way to a tax cut, as the economy took a bad turn. He has now produced record deficits. Sure, had he stayed the course we were on, and not cut taxes, and not started his Iraq war, there probably would be some deficits, but not nearly of the magnitude which he as produced.

Clinton left office with over 3 trillion dollars of debt.You into tossing up hanging curve-balls today? 12 years of Reagan and Bush1 increased the national debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion; Clinton managed to cut it down a bit. And you're blaming the national debt on him?????? For all the Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of being the party of "tax and spend," the truth is that the Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend." At least the Democrats have the honesty and integrity to pay for what they buy, rather than leaving it to our children to pay for.

I think the freedom fry was stupid too, but France along with Russia and others didn't help us because they were making too much money. Oil for food, hint hint. Keep talking about lies. Then keep talking about not showing proof of anything. Hypocrisy at its finest.Would you like to explain your charge of hypocricy?

AS, maybe you should look it up. Fiscal year 2000 saw a surplus of 237 billion. Fiscal year 2001 saw that shrink a bit, but we still had a surplus of 127 billion. And while it is true that when Clinton left office we had a huge debt, it's difficult to blame that on Clinton himself, Clinton's years saw the deficit go to a surplus as early as 98. If there is any bad guy as far as the debt goes, it would be Reagan, whose administration saw the debt almost triple.

And money wasn't the big reason for France dragging its feet in the UN. Especially considering that those in charge of the government didn't see benefits from oil for food. The big reason was because Chirac sees france and the EU as the counterbalance and opposition to the US. We haven't really helped that view very much with our actions either. But Chirac does deserve part of the blame, even though most french agreed with his policies.

AS, maybe you should look it up. Fiscal year 2000 saw a surplus of 237 billion. Fiscal year 2001 saw that shrink a bit, but we still had a surplus of 127 billion. And while it is true that when Clinton left office we had a huge debt, it's difficult to blame that on Clinton himself, Clinton's years saw the deficit go to a surplus as early as 98. If there is any bad guy as far as the debt goes, it would be Reagan, whose administration saw the debt almost triple.

And money wasn't the big reason for France dragging its feet in the UN. Especially considering that those in charge of the government didn't see benefits from oil for food. The big reason was because Chirac sees france and the EU as the counterbalance and opposition to the US. We haven't really helped that view very much with our actions either. But Chirac does deserve part of the blame, even though most french agreed with his policies.
I didn't blame it on Clinton at all. You guys sure like to twist my words. Someone was praising Clinton for getting us billions of dollars into surplus so I was showing them reality. If you were to actually read what I said, you'd see I never said it was Clinton's fault. I mixed some things up about Clintons last year, I apologize, but that's not to say Bush had a booming economy to work with either. Since a lot of guys here are into cars, I'll relate it to a dynomomater. When the weather conditions, day, actual machine are different you get different results. It's apples to oranges to compare these two economies. About Reagan, go ahead and blame it on him. He came into presidency after the wonderful job done by my favorite president, Jimmy Carter. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I understand it all too well. Bush wanted his war, was willing to do and say anything to get his war, and now he's got it. He's too chicken-sh!t to have the political courage to actually fund the war by raising taxes, so he's just increasing the deficit, since Republicans love deficits.

Do you really believe this drivel? There was a surplus in Clinton's last year. Look it up. Surpluses were forecast for the foreseeable future. W lied his way to a tax cut, as the economy took a bad turn. He has now produced record deficits. Sure, had he stayed the course we were on, and not cut taxes, and not started his Iraq war, there probably would be some deficits, but not nearly of the magnitude which he as produced.

You into tossing up hanging curve-balls today? 12 years of Reagan and Bush1 increased the national debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion; Clinton managed to cut it down a bit. And you're blaming the national debt on him?????? For all the Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of being the party of "tax and spend," the truth is that the Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend." At least the Democrats have the honesty and integrity to pay for what they buy, rather than leaving it to our children to pay for.

Would you like to explain your charge of hypocricy?

Again, I never blamed Clinton for our debt, I can see you don't like to read everything I say. Fair enough. The hypocrisy(that is how it is spelled, but don't take that as anu insult) lies in you talking about all these things Bush did and showing any proof. You're correct that we're at war but you cannot prove all of these allegations, not in the least. Reagans economic policies worked and we saw that at the end of Bush senior's term and all through Clinton(though with some new takes i.e. Gingrich and Congress working to defeat Clinton's federalized programs, Mecdicare ring a bell?). Supply side economics can work well, you should read up a bit on them, it's interesting stuff.

Again, I never blamed Clinton for our debt, I can see you don't like to read everything I say. Fair enough.Curioser and curioser.... In response to our statements about deficit, you said "Clinton left office over $3 trillion of debt." Now, I don't know any way to interpret that, except that, through ignorance or whatever, you were trying to blame it on Clinton, Why else mention it?

The hypocrisy(that is how it is spelled, but don't take that as anu insult) lies in you talking about all these things Bush did and showing any proof.We've been through this many, many times. There is ample evidence that Bush lied to get his war. If you choose instead to believe that he was unbelievably ignorant, be my guest.

You're correct that we're at war but you cannot prove all of these allegations, not in the least.There you go again....

Reagans economic policies workedHe tripled the national debt, running record deficts year after year. In what way does this constitute economic policies that worked? Was it Bush1 who labeled his so-called "trickle-down" theory to be "voodoo economics." Yeah, it worked, all right.

and we saw that at the end of Bush senior's term and all through Clinton(though with some new takes i.e. Gingrich and Congress working to defeat Clinton's federalized programs, Mecdicare ring a bell?). Supply side economics can work well, you should read up a bit on them, it's interesting stuff.I guess you must mean, by "worked," that "supply side economics," a/k/a "voodoo economics," is a remarkably efficient way to increase the national debt and decrease the taxes rich people pay. That's not how I woud define "worked."

First of all I never said you were blaming Clinton for the debt. I merely said that the debt was big, but it would be wrong to blame Clinton for it.

Now, Reagan's economic policies worked, we saw economic growth under Reagan, but they were risky, we are still paying for them, and the growth was limited to the top 5%. Bush, you might remember, went against Reagan's economic policies. He made the famous broken promise, etc. And the result was that the deficit began to shrink. Once Clinton took office he passed the 1993 deficit reduction act with every single republican voting against it. All said that it would destroy the economy. What followed was the longest period of economic growth the country has ever seen.

Supply side economics could work, in theory, but everything has to be right, which is why 99% of the country's top economists disagree with the idea. It simply isn't worth the risk. The benefits don't match the cost.

As far as the theoy that you have hinted which I have heard else where that the growth during Clinton was actually delayed benefits of Reagan, and that the problems we have now were due to Clinton, that's a stretch. That it took 16 years before it worked, but went wrong within one. Tough to buy, at least for me.

And Bush had a great economy to work with. His first year saw the surplus decline, but we still had a surplus, in spite of the tech bubble popping. He cut taxes severly, and we were forced to borrow immediately. Now we're in a war, that looks like it's going to be a while. Which means even more spending, if there ever was a time to sacrifice and roll back the tax cut, now would be it.

As far as Jimmy Carter, he was the last person in the white house who looked out for the little guy (Clinton looked out more for the middle class.) And we saw how the press treated him. Despite that, however, he still managed to accomplish quite a bit. The first camp david accord, 3.1% job growth per year (as opposed to Reagan's 2.1%, and that's including the 1.4 million jobs for bureaucrats Reagan created) for example.

And though your comment was probably directed at Spider, I'm curious if you think that I have made any allegations for which I have not provided sufficent support.

We've been through this many, many times. There is ample evidence that Bush lied to get his war.

I just can't help myself. And a "bully" war it is, too:

The administration needs to take the entire Social Security funding and tie it to oil futures for the next few months. The system, after the investment, would be solvent for several more centuries. ;)

You guys don't seem to understand this. We are at war whether you like it or not, and wars cost money. Bush didn't come into his term with a surplus, look it up. When he became president, he had a failing economy as a recession was beginning. Clinton left office with over 3 trillion dollars of debt. ... Sorry, friend. But once again actual facts are a real inconvenience for your position. According the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the watchdog agency set up to provide Congress with factual information about taxes and spending, the greatest contributor to current and future budget deficits is not "the war," as expensive as it might be, but Bush's tax cuts.

From 2001 to 2005, 48% of the budget deficits resulted from Bush's tax cuts, while 37% resulted from increased spending on "defense, homeland security, and international affairs." The remaining 15% resulted from increases in all domestic programs.

In fact, of course, Bush did come into office with a surplus, not a deficit. You seem to have confused the deficit in current revenues vs. spending with the national debt built up over a period of 225 years, not exactly the same thing or attributable to the Clinton administration. (However, as noted by others, 75% of the entire national debt was incurred during the eight years of the Reagan administration. Reagan's record, however, will soon be eclipsed by the incredibly irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush Administration, even if the $2 trillion increase in the national debt necesssary to implement his Social Security scheme fails to come to fruition.)

It is true that in the absence of any tax increases to pay for the "war on terror," the US would be facing some budget deficits. However, that's a red herring. At no time in American history have we tried to fight a war without tax increases to pay for it.

In this case, remarkably enough, the Bush administration has tried to fight the war while simultaneously cutting taxes. This has led to the largest deficits in American history with record deficits stretching out indefinitely in the future as even more of Bush's tax cuts come on line in the last half of the current decade.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

Would you like to try again?

Here is what I have for the 2005 Budget in millions of dollars:

Function Title FY 20051
050 National Defense 423,098
150 International Affairs 29,569
250 General Science, Space and Technology 24,459
270 Energy 1,883
300 Natural Resources and Environment 30,286
350 Agriculture 22,353
370 Commerce and Housing Credit 8,092
400 Transportation 69,494
450 Community and Regional Development 12,949
500 Education, Training, Employment and Social Services 91,817
550 Health 248,780
570 Medicare 293,574
600 Income Security 342,324
650 Social Security 516,457
700 Veterans Benefits and Services 65,444
750 Administration of Justice 40,781
800 General Government 19,392
900 Net Interest 177,909
920 Allowances (798)
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (63,108)
Total: 2,354,755
Thanks for posting this. What does Income Security stand for?

And I guess you have not talked to the majority of the servicemembers fighting and willing to go back, because they actually know why. It is a little different story than what is syphoned through the liberal press.


Actually, you swing and you miss!!! I represent folks in the servace, and my local VFW. SO I get to talk to a lot of military familys...and about, oh, 80% think they got a raw deal, and are there for no good reason, and they DO NOT want to go back. Some of them had to buy their own body protection, and I know two who welded scrap steel on their humvees. Most tragic, I know a family who lost someone...so you know what? I do know what I am talking about, and you, well, I hate to say you are an ignorant fool, so I will just say you are an idiot....no doubt with a "bend over for bush" bumper sticker...send your kid over, then we will talk. Of course, that would require you to talk someone into mating....and no, your sister or cousin is not a good choice, and with your rare mix of stupidity and ignorance, no doubt wrapped up in a remarkably unattractive package....well, I guess the chance of actually breeding is remote. :p

Thanks for posting this. What does Income Security stand for? The budgetary category of "Income Security" consists of...





Retirement and disability insurance (excluding Social Security)
Federal Employee retirement and disability
Unemployment compensation
Housing Assistance
Food and nutrition assistance
"Other" (unspecified) assistance
See http://www.house.gov/rules/98-280.pdf

...
The claim stands. Those systems, whether or not you accept the label of socialist states, attempt to have government "safety net" everything and fail in the attempt. While you cleverly throw out "Europeans average between 40% and 45%", (there you go with that math thing again) the high income earners, like me, are already at 60% in their "govt cares for everything -- poorly" system.
You continue to toss in these intriguing little jabs that deserve some justification if you have any. No question that European nations provide a significantly more effective safety net for their populations, but I'm wondering how you claim that such safety nets are "failures." I would have thought that your objection would be to their success (in subsidizing laziness and failure) rather than their "failure." Care to elaborate?

And while we're at it, perhaps you should go hunting for a new tax advisor. If you're "already at 60%" in terms of your contributions to government programs, I'd have to doubt that your "high income" results from your savvy management of your finances or your tax liabilities.

Actually, you swing and you miss!!! I represent folks in the servace, and my local VFW. SO I get to talk to a lot of military familys...and about, oh, 80% think they got a raw deal, and are there for no good reason, and they DO NOT want to go back. Some of them had to buy their own body protection, and I know two who welded scrap steel on their humvees. Most tragic, I know a family who lost someone...so you know what? I do know what I am talking about, and you, well, I hate to say you are an ignorant fool, so I will just say you are an idiot....no doubt with a "bend over for bush" bumper sticker...send your kid over, then we will talk. Of course, that would require you to talk someone into mating....and no, your sister or cousin is not a good choice, and with your rare mix of stupidity and ignorance, no doubt wrapped up in a remarkably unattractive package....well, I guess the chance of actually breeding is remote. :p


Good morning to you, too. So, you actually polled the families and got 80%. I'd have to see that in paper form, in simple english please, from the ignorant (and inbred, apparantly.)

I did not say that the war was perfect or that we had all the supplies that we need. Have we ever? War is ugly and has casualties. NO ONE likes it. It is also not just about OUR freedoms, but being a superpower, the freedoms of others. No, we have not saved everyone in the world, and yes, it is biasedly selective, but you cannot actually sit there and say that removing Saddam from power was not good, and that the servicemembers ACTUALLY there were not proud to fight to do so...I mean, beside the 80% of your polled families' results .

You also did not mention the key phrases... that you were or are in the military and served in Iraq, or just sit back and REPRESENT other brave families who DID put their lives on the line for their country. We ALL know families that have lost one or more members of their family. Being in the military, amazingly enough, brings you VERY close to those issues. Actually knowing someone does not make you special, or more on point.

I do love the personal attacks, best defense for lack of knowledge. So, if you are not afraid of inbreds, come give me a hug. BTW, stick to forum comedy. It is definitely your forte'. XOXOXO

First of all I never said you were blaming Clinton for the debt. I merely said that the debt was big, but it would be wrong to blame Clinton for it.

Now, Reagan's economic policies worked, we saw economic growth under Reagan, but they were risky, we are still paying for them, and the growth was limited to the top 5%. Bush, you might remember, went against Reagan's economic policies. He made the famous broken promise, etc. And the result was that the deficit began to shrink. Once Clinton took office he passed the 1993 deficit reduction act with every single republican voting against it. All said that it would destroy the economy. What followed was the longest period of economic growth the country has ever seen.

Supply side economics could work, in theory, but everything has to be right, which is why 99% of the country's top economists disagree with the idea. It simply isn't worth the risk. The benefits don't match the cost.

As far as the theoy that you have hinted which I have heard else where that the growth during Clinton was actually delayed benefits of Reagan, and that the problems we have now were due to Clinton, that's a stretch. That it took 16 years before it worked, but went wrong within one. Tough to buy, at least for me.

And Bush had a great economy to work with. His first year saw the surplus decline, but we still had a surplus, in spite of the tech bubble popping. He cut taxes severly, and we were forced to borrow immediately. Now we're in a war, that looks like it's going to be a while. Which means even more spending, if there ever was a time to sacrifice and roll back the tax cut, now would be it.

As far as Jimmy Carter, he was the last person in the white house who looked out for the little guy (Clinton looked out more for the middle class.) And we saw how the press treated him. Despite that, however, he still managed to accomplish quite a bit. The first camp david accord, 3.1% job growth per year (as opposed to Reagan's 2.1%, and that's including the 1.4 million jobs for bureaucrats Reagan created) for example.

And though your comment was probably directed at Spider, I'm curious if you think that I have made any allegations for which I have not provided sufficent support.


Most of what you say here I agree with. I've never accused you specifically of not providing evidnence. I don't have much time to refute all these posts/points but I will try my best when I return tomorrow. 124spider, maybe you could be more like Zhizoe(what does that name mean anyway?) and actually refute my points with more facts instead of anti-Bush aggression? Farewell everyone. I'll be back later tomorrow.

Yup, I like to amuse...and I did try to sign up, way back in 1980.....but they would not take me. Chronic gout is the genetic curse of my family. And from what my clients tell me, they are proud to be in the military, as they should...they are not proud of how they are being used, while they are forced to fight for basic stuff, and benifits. And yup, I am having a piss poor morning...but my last post was aimed at amusing....of course, at your expense. If I am really trying to put a burr up your tail pipe, I would not use the emoticons..f/y/i.

But, no, I do not think they are better off without him...frankly, I think the only person who can control them is a ruthless dictator, as we have seen for the past year or so...oh, that's right, our "mission" was accomplished. I guess or 1500 or so dead and our 15,000 or so injured since then are just the creations of our biased media.

You know, there are plenty of african contry's in really bad shape...we are not going in there to fix them up....gee, wonder what the ....oh, I know OIL!

I think I need to whip up a KLEGGSPEED mod that removes the glass some of our redder members seem to use to view the world. Now I will go back to my silly old self.

War is ugly and has casualties.

One of the best reasons I have heard so far for trying to avoid it.

And noone will argue with you that Saddam is a bad guy, but there were hidden costs for taking him out, and you have to ask yourself if the sacrifices we have made were worth it. Taking out Saddam played right into the hands of Al Qaeda, which had been saying for years that the US hates islam and was going to attack one of the major middle eastern countries. Not to mention all the people we've lost, the men and women who have been disfigured, and the innocents killed.

Was Iraq the most free country in the world? no. But it was far from the worst, especially when it came to women's rights and international terrorism.

Even if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, preemption was far from our only option. Look at Libya.

As far as freeing the people, I'm all for freeing people. But it normally works better when it comes from within rather then without. And it is very difficult, as we are seeing. For me, the costs vastly outstrip the supposed benefits. Which isn't to say that we we're not going to see benefits, I really hope that we do, but you have to ask yourself, is it worth the cost.

As we saw from Clinton, you can get a lot of benefit without much sacrifice.

Where as now we're buying $557,000 worth of raffle tickets hoping to win a tercel there could be a benefit, the car, but it's hardly worth the cost.

And AS, I really don't even remember what the name means at this point. I started using it years ago. Have fun and we'll look forward to your responses tomorrow.

You are looking forward to the reply's? like most will actually grasp what you are saying? Silly man, you can not use LOGIC in this thread :rolleyes:

Silly man, you can not use LOGIC in this thread :rolleyes:

Even Spock has given up on the neo-cons:

I would have thought that your objection would be to their success (in subsidizing laziness and failure) rather than their "failure." Care to elaborate?Strangely phrased Jsh. Let's try my version. I would have thought that their success at failing would be apparent, given such abysmal unemployment rates, and you would have succeeded in seeing the failed success.

While you cleverly throw out "Europeans average between 40% and 45%", (there you go with that math thing again) the high income earners like me, are already at 60% in their "govt cares for everything -- poorly" system. Did I say I was at 60%? Clearly I'm not. But when I approach 40%, your side calls for government to confiscate more of my earnings to further subsidize government failure. My point, (for the third time for those slower members) -- enough is never enough. 40% could be 50% or 60% and your side would propose new taxation (vs proposing cuts in spending) to be paid for by the 5% of taxpayers who pay the lions share.

Like my new avatar? :D I thought you would.

Cheers,
Oranje

SS timeline trail of tears. Good intentions, paved over with more good intentions, with no intention of finding a way of paying for it all, until the crushing weight of it nears collapse.

Cheers,
Oranje


1935 FDR signs SSA. This included basic unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

1939 amendments added payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors’ benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. This change transformed Social Security from a retirement program for workers into a family-based economic security program.

1950 amendments increased benefits for existing beneficiaries for the first time (COLAs) and they dramatically increased the value of the program to future beneficiaries.

1950 and 1952 COLA (77% and 12.5%) adjustments double the value of benefits for existing beneficiaries. Yearly increases eventually are tied to changes in the consumer price index as follows:

9/50 77% 12/88 4%
9/52 13% 12/89 5%
9/54 13% 12/90 5%
1/59 7% 12/91 4%
1/65 7% 12/92 3%
2/68 13% 12/93 3%
1/70 15% 12/94 3%
1/71 10% 12/95 3%
9/72 20% 12/96 3%
3/74 7% 12/97 2%
6/74 11% 12/98 1%
6/75 8% 12/99 3%
6/76 6% 12/00 4%
6/77 6% 12/01 3%
6/78 7% 12/02 1%
6/79 10% 12/03 2%
6/80 14% 12/04 3%
6/81 11%
6/82 7%
12/83 4%
12/84 4%
12/85 3%
12/86 1%
12/87 4%

1954 initiated a disability insurance program.

1956 amended to provide benefits to disabled workers aged 50-64 and disabled adult children.

1960 amended disability rules to permit payment of benefits to disabled workers of any age and to their dependents

1961 the age at which men are first eligible for old-age insurance was lowered to 62. This changed greatly increase participants. The number of people receiving disability benefits more than doubled from 1961 to 1969

1965 amended SSA to become responsible for administering a new social insurance program that extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. Nearly 20 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first 3 years of the program.

1972 Congress federalized the "adult categories" (needy aged and disabled) by creating the SSI program and assigned responsibility for it to SSA.

1977 amendments attempted to address the short and long term financing of the program.

1980 made many changes in the disability program. Most of these changes focused on various work incentive provisions for both Social Security and SSI disability benefits.

1983 President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. Amendments made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century

1996(Contract with America act) made a change in the basic philosophy of the disability program. Beginning on that date, new applicants for Social Security or SSI disability benefits could no longer be eligible for benefits if drug addiction or alcoholism is a material factor to their disability.

1996 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) ended the categorical entitlement to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act by implementing time-limited benefits along with a work requirement. The law also terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens.

1997 SSI provision makes sponsorship agreements legally enforceable for the first time. In the area of identification-related documents, the law requires the establishment of federal standards for state-issued birth certificates and requires SSA to develop a prototype counterfeit-resistant Social Security card

1997 law restored SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996

1999 law creates a Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program seeks to shift the emphasis in the disability program away from mere maintenance of benefits more toward rehabilitating the disabled.

2000 law eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test (RET) for those beneficiaries at or above Normal Retirement Age. Starting at the NRA, Social Security retirement benefits will be paid to beneficiaries who are still working

2001 President Bush announced the appointment of Social Security Commission and its principles

* It must preserve the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement.
* It must return Social Security to sound financial footing.
* And it must offer personal savings accounts to younger workers who want them.

2004 At the beginning of his second term, President Bush made it clear that Social Security reform would be a top priority of his Administration.

------

1940 slightly more than 222,000 (0.2% of 132M) people received monthly Social Security benefits

2002 over 46 million (14.4% of 320M) people receive such benefits

ahh black text, my eyes!

Even Spock has given up on the neo-cons:


Ohh god...can't breath......pissing myself....ROFLMAO X 20....

SS timeline trail of tears. Good intentions, paved over with more good intentions, with no intention of finding a way of paying for it all, until the crushing weight of it nears collapse.

And how do Bush's proposals fix anything? Answer: they don't, and they're not intended to. And how does HE intend to pay for HIS proposals? With the national Visa card, of course.

As if it Social Security needs immediate fixing in the first place, other than the ordinary, reasoned, prudent tweaks that any such system periodically needs. That does not include the type of breathless panic currently being foisted upon the American Public. Reminds me of a movie line:

"That's right, Mr. Bernstein. I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year, and next year. You know, at that rate, I'll have to close this place . . . in sixty years."

Charles Foster Kane

Well jsh I thought I would never see the day where you put intellectual and republican in the same sentence. I am damn proud of you and this just proves that there is hope for our friends on the left. Or maybe it was just a fun filled day in the sun up there in the Great Northwest. :) Actually, there once was a respectable intellectual tradition in the Republican Party, one with which someone on the left could disagree without feeling that they were discussing politics with the Mad Hatter.

Here's a perspective from a Republican that pretty much says it all about what has happened to the Repubican Party.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002205731_sundaybryan13.html

Among other points...

"...(T)here is nothing confused about this president's agenda. At this point in his presidency, he has fielded the most focused agenda in modern times, to great effect. His success rate in major policy activities is nothing less than astounding. No wonder he has never vetoed a bill! Ironically, though, this tightly focused and highly successful agenda has led to an incoherent program and with no understandable governing philosophy — for both the president and his party. The legacy of Bush is a modern Republican Party with no anchor, no clear goals, rushing forward doing things, accomplishing much, but putting into place policies that do not add up to a sensible public philosophy to sustain the future.

Such inconsistency leads inevitably to irresponsible public finance. And that is how the Republican Party came to forsake its heritage of small government and fiscal prudence. It has traded a sound and guiding set of principles for a set of confused and self-contradictory assertions that are nevertheless asserted with strong conviction. The inevitable result is poor government.

Ad hoc reasons are generated to cover policy initiatives instead of initiatives being grounded in sound reasoning. Rather than an underlying rationale of limited government, or of Christian values, or of neoconservative power, one gets a set of disconnected and one-time theories to cover what is being done.

For tax cuts, we get "it's the people's money" and "we need an economic stimulus," and "if we 'starve the beast' by limiting its revenue flows, then government will shrink." For the invasion of Iraq, we get "weapons of mass destruction" to "ridding the world of a dictator" to "promoting democracy throughout the world."

Unfortunately, the collective result of a focused, successful agenda and an incoherent public philosophy is government by inconsistency.

This incoherence is brand new. For most of the period since the Great Depression, the Republican Party articulated the case for limited government and fiscal responsibility.

Even when Republicans expanded government — as they did in the Eisenhower years with a commitment to science, space and transportation — they stood rock solid for prudent budgeting. If the government took it on, the taxpayers would have to pony up the means.


The first major change came with the notion, adopted by President Ronald Reagan, that tax cuts would stimulate enough revenue that government would not need to control spending. Reagan tried mightily to get Congress to limit domestic spending (while he pushed large new military initiatives) at the same time taxes were cut.

When the supply-side endeavor failed, yielding huge deficits rather than a balanced budget, Reagan's advisers prevailed on him to support tax increases.

Then congressional Republicans and Democrats together put in place a series of rules — the "pay-go" rules — designed to hold fast to the understanding that budgets needed to be balanced and public finances needed to be restrained. They required offsetting money to fund new programs or new tax cuts. These restraints died in 2001 when President Bush refused to support their renewal..."


It's worth a read by both Republicans and their opponents.

SS timeline trail of tears. Good intentions, paved over with more good intentions, with no intention of finding a way of paying for it all, until the crushing weight of it nears collapse.

Cheers,
Oranje

Well, the long list was good for a laugh anyway. Apparently, from the laundry list of extensions and modifications put in place since 1935 you mean to suggest that the program should never have been modified to cope with changes in American industrial society. Or that you would have expected it to disappear altogether at some point in time. Or, as I suspect, you believe it was a mistake to implement Social Security in the first place.

Sorry, friend, but the single most important reason that the American elderly no longer face poverty at the end of their working lives is the Social Security system. I'm afraid your efforts to maintain it is a "failure" is laughable to all but a tiny minority of the American public.

And of course, it is no more "near collapse" than it was when it was implemented in 1935. All it requires is the periodic adjustments that have come about through both Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 70 years.

How dare you site a republican making valid points about his party....what a typically slanted and biased source...you liberals are all alike..did I miss anything? Figured I would beat our red friends to the punch..

Strangely phrased Jsh. Let's try my version. I would have thought that their success at failing would be apparent, given such abysmal unemployment rates, and you would have succeeded in seeing the failed success.

Did I say I was at 60%? Clearly I'm not. But when I approach 40%, your side calls for government to confiscate more of my earnings to further subsidize government failure. My point, (for the third time for those slower members) -- enough is never enough. 40% could be 50% or 60% and your side would propose new taxation (vs proposing cuts in spending) to be paid for by the 5% of taxpayers who pay the lions share.

Like my new avatar? :D I thought you would.

Cheers,
Oranje It's hell being rich, ain't it, buddy? One wonders why you strive to earn more money since the more you earn, the less you take home.

Well, not really. As you'd undoubtedly agree, 65% of $1 million is still more than 90% of $50,000. And raising your tax rate to the horrible confiscatory marginal rate of 40% on that additional $1 million would still leave you $600K to take home at the end of the day. Hell, taking home 50% of that million would still leave you better off than if you hadn't earned it.

As for the "failure" of the European safety net, I assume you must mean that the net "failed" if the trapeze artist falls off the bar. Using such logic, if one doesn't put up the net, the trapeze artist will never fall. (I must admit that I use such logic in everyday life from time to time. e.g. "If I don't replace my tires, I won't have a flat," but even I recognize that it's a rationalization, not a rationale.)

The bottom line is that societies make different trade-offs in attempting to cope with the uncertainties of modern economic life. Europeans, for example, generally prefer to cushion the impact of economic dislocation. For that benefit they're willing to sacrifice a greater portion of their taxes and potentially to put up with a greater cost of doing business and on average slightly higher levels of unemployment.

It should be noted, however, that Europeans make it far more difficult for individuals to file bankruptcy than Americans have traditionally allowed in recognition of the existence of their social safety nets.

Americans, on the other hand, traditionally provide a less effective safety net in return for more rapid response to changing economic conditions. Traditionally, however, those less effective social welfare policies have been balanced by comparatively generous bankruptcy provisions to allow people subject to dislocation to "start over."

With the passage of the current bankruptcy bill before Congress, even that protection will be reduced significantly for those who suffer illness, job loss, or family disruptions through death and divorce. (90% of all Chapter 7 bankruptcies.)

Theoretically...and I emphasize "theoretically," this should allow the Credit Card industry to lower its usurious interest rates, fees and penalties, since they bear less risk of bankruptcies among their customers.

Get back to me when your credit card interest rates go down.

So, in summary, if one wishes to look at "failures" in economic safety nets, one doesn't have to look to Europe. There are plenty of examples right here in the good old USA. And with the current administration and Congress such "failures" are the direct result of public policy.

Welcome back, Oranje. :D

I'm not going to get bogged down in this pointless liberal whine-fest, other than to add my two cents on one of the figures Oranje posted about the number of citizens receiving SS benefits.

I actually get to see what kind of people are getting Medicaid and Medicare firsthand, and can review their medical histories and evaluate their conditions. A large proportion (more than half, I would say) of these under-65-year-old folks on Medicare disability are absolutely able to work. They may not be as healthy as most of us, but they walk, they talk, they can carry a box, they can get off their ass every day and get to work like the rest of us. And Texas is one of the strictest states in granting SS disability in the nation!

I'm tired of supporting lazy bastards, and no they are not a myth. I see healthy young Medicaid couples walk in to my ER every day....they are not required to pay any type of copay or any funds whatsoever for their "free" care, and we get reimbursed not 1/4 of what we should for our federally required evaluation and treatment of them. So as a result, those without any insurance get charged two or three times as much as they should, and those with insurance have a $50 - $100 copay up front, followed by a huge bill if they haven't met their deductible.

Sorry, your back pain, your morbid obesity, or your diabetes should NOT allow you qualify for disability. Get your lazy asses off the couch and get a frigging job. That's my answer for saving social security. And bump the age to 70, we're living a lot longer now than we did in 1945.

And I realize that such a move will not solve all our economic troubles, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do.

Welcome back, Oranje. :D
Sorry, your back pain, your morbid obesity, or your diabetes should NOT allow you qualify for disability. Get your lazy asses off the couch and get a frigging job. That's my answer for saving social security. And bump the age to 70, we're living a lot longer now than we did in 1945.

Har. You left out mental problems. My brother in-law is on permanent disability for bi-polar mood disorder. His real trouble is a vision problem, he can't see working.

As for social security, I'm not counting on it.

Welcome back, Oranje. :D

I'm not going to get bogged down in this pointless liberal whine-fest, other than to add my two cents on one of the figures Oranje posted about the number of citizens receiving SS benefits.

I actually get to see what kind of people are getting Medicaid and Medicare firsthand, and can review their medical histories and evaluate their conditions. A large proportion (more than half, I would say) of these under-65-year-old folks on Medicare disability are absolutely able to work. They may not be as healthy as most of us, but they walk, they talk, they can carry a box, they can get off their ass every day and get to work like the rest of us. And Texas is one of the strictest states in granting SS disability in the nation!

I'm tired of supporting lazy bastards, and no they are not a myth. I see healthy young Medicaid couples walk in to my ER every day....they are not required to pay any type of copay or any funds whatsoever for their "free" care, and we get reimbursed not 1/4 of what we should for our federally required evaluation and treatment of them. So as a result, those without any insurance get charged two or three times as much as they should, and those with insurance have a $50 - $100 copay up front, followed by a huge bill if they haven't met their deductible.

Sorry, your back pain, your morbid obesity, or your diabetes should NOT allow you qualify for disability. Get your lazy asses off the couch and get a frigging job. That's my answer for saving social security. And bump the age to 70, we're living a lot longer now than we did in 1945.

And I realize that such a move will not solve all our economic troubles, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do.This is fascinating, Doc, in the same way all your posts are, but what does it have to do with Social Security? Neither Medicare nor Medicaid is a Social Security program.

Welcome back, Oranje. :D

I'm not going to get bogged down in this pointless liberal whine-fest, other than to add my two cents on one of the figures Oranje posted about the number of citizens receiving SS benefits.

I actually get to see what kind of people are getting Medicaid and Medicare firsthand, and can review their medical histories and evaluate their conditions. A large proportion (more than half, I would say) of these under-65-year-old folks on Medicare disability are absolutely able to work. They may not be as healthy as most of us, but they walk, they talk, they can carry a box, they can get off their ass every day and get to work like the rest of us. And Texas is one of the strictest states in granting SS disability in the nation!

I'm tired of supporting lazy bastards, and no they are not a myth. I see healthy young Medicaid couples walk in to my ER every day....they are not required to pay any type of copay or any funds whatsoever for their "free" care, and we get reimbursed not 1/4 of what we should for our federally required evaluation and treatment of them. So as a result, those without any insurance get charged two or three times as much as they should, and those with insurance have a $50 - $100 copay up front, followed by a huge bill if they haven't met their deductible.

Sorry, your back pain, your morbid obesity, or your diabetes should NOT allow you qualify for disability. Get your lazy asses off the couch and get a frigging job. That's my answer for saving social security. And bump the age to 70, we're living a lot longer now than we did in 1945.

And I realize that such a move will not solve all our economic troubles, but it is a start, and it is the right thing to do.



Compassionate conservatism at it's best.

This is fascinating, Doc, in the same way all your posts are, but what does it have to do with Social Security? Neither Medicare nor Medicaid is a Social Security program.If someone is under 65 years old and getting Medicare benefits, then it is because they are typically also getting Social Security disability payments....correct me if I'm wrong. This includes essentially every hemodialysis patient, for example.

But Medicare and Medicaid are two wasteful government programs that are easy pickings for reducing the deficit. Sometimes problems can be fixed or averted by reducing spending instead of raising taxes, believe it or not.

Compassionate conservatism at it's best.Bumper sticker argumentation at its worst.

yay! I was just thinking about you sir speed!!! I hadn't seen you post in a few days and was worrying that you were working to hard!!!

*ok back to original programming*

Bumper sticker argumentation at its worst.


C'mon Doc I expected more from you than that. Either I struck a nerve or your losing your touch. :p

I thought the biggest proponents of reduced spending were Democrats. They didn't want the war.

C'mon Doc I expected more from you than that. Either I struck a nerve or your losing your touch. :p
You've got to come up with better than well-worn meaningless cliches to play with the big boys, son. :p

The bigger they are the harder they fall! :p

If someone is under 65 years old and getting Medicare benefits, then it is because they are typically also getting Social Security disability payments....correct me if I'm wrong. This includes essentially every hemodialysis patient, for example.

But Medicare and Medicaid are two wasteful government programs that are easy pickings for reducing the deficit. Sometimes problems can be fixed or averted by reducing spending instead of raising taxes, believe it or not.Ah, I understand. I was giving you far too much credit. You just want to let 'em die. Compassionate medical person. :rolleyes:

I thought the biggest proponents of reduced spending were Democrats. They didn't want the war.Umm, you mean the Democrats elected to Congress? No, they voted for the war, they just didn't want to fund it when it came down to the nitty gritty. And then they changed their story later. Typical.

I thought the vote wasn't for the war, it was just about giving the president the power to go to war if there aren't any other options?

I thought the vote wasn't for the war, it was just about giving the president the power to go to war if there aren't any other options?


Stop that..you can not quote facts here.....geez, I should be the logic mod.. :rolleyes:

I thought the vote wasn't for the war, it was just about giving the president the power to go to war if there aren't any other options?Ooh, a nuance!!!! I haven't heard any of those in a while.

And just who was supposed to decide whether or not there weren't any other options? :rolleyes:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Umm, you mean the Democrats elected to Congress? No, they voted for the war, they just didn't want to fund it when it came down to the nitty gritty. And then they changed their story later. Typical.

Fine Doc, you win. We'll cut all funding for Medicare. However, there will still be Medicare. The only thing we'll change is that now all doctors have to see all Medicare patients free of charge :p. Those Lawyers you dislike have to do pro-bono work anyways.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

We've been over this before. All these statements are correct. However, the intelligence reports given by the Bush administration were faulty and left out sources and facts like some of the intelligence had been previously discredited by the CIA. The "compelling evidence" and "intelligence reports" shown to Congress did indicate that Saddam had WMD and were edited or doctored to look like they were credible.

Well one could argue though, that disarming Saddam didn't necessarily mean to go to war.

And in the end, no matter how much people hate him, and how bad of a job he's doing he still beat the democratic candidate. So what now?

Fine Doc, you win. We'll cut all funding for Medicare. However, there will still be Medicare. The only thing we'll change is that now all doctors have to see all Medicare patients free of charge :p. Those Lawyers you dislike have to do pro-bono work anyways.



.

YES!!!(pumping fist in air) :D

I think every government spending program except for military pay/benefits/equipment needs to be closely scrutinized line by line for ways to trim the budget. I wouldn't eliminate Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security....but I would trim all of them.

Why don't you want to scrutinize ALL government spending programs.

When you don't scrutinize don't you automatically support corruption. I remember when the Swiss army was still treated like a holy cow, a simple aluminum drinking bottle ended up costing $100.

Why don't you want to scrutinize ALL government spending programs.
Of course you are right. There is always room to trim the excess in any budget....I would more likely redistribute military spending rather than cutting their budget however. Now isn't the time to screw around with our national defense when we finally have re-established it. Strong military = strong country.

Of course you are right. There is always room to trim the excess in any budget....I would more likely redistribute military spending rather than cutting their budget however. Now isn't the time to screw around with our national defense when we finally have re-established it. Strong military = strong country.

what is currently weak about our military/ we already spend more than the next 7 countries put together in military spending.

Well I'd argue that a strong economy makes ultimately a strong country. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to afford a strong military in the first place anyway. Maybe it'd be better if the military would distribute more on R&D to keep the technological advantage, which would indirectly support the US economy as well as long as it's results can be used in civil applications.

Fortunately, we have a strong military, a strong economy, and a strong country.

Thank you President Bush!!!!!

Ha, strong economy says who? According to the Bush economic theory if we have a strong economy we should raise taxes so we can pay off the defecit it took to get the strong economy. You can thank Clinton for the military too.

I'd say the point when the US might have been the most powerful country in the world was just after the WWII (being the only country with the Bomb) and back then Bush must have still swam around in his fathers balls and couldn't really contribute much to the strength of the country.

Also some people could argue that the US was stronger (just look at the strength of the US Dollar) when Clinton left office then it is now.
But still I wouldn't say thank you Clinton (if I was an American), I would say thank you American people.

I'd say the point when the US might have been the most powerful country in the world was just after the WWII (being the only country with the Bomb) and back then Bush must have still swam around in his fathers balls and couldn't really contribute much to the strength of the country.

Bush wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't still swimming around in his father's balls, and hasn't (and couldn't) contribute to what the real strengths of this country should be even if he were to escape.

Bush wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't still swimming around in his father's balls, and hasn't (and couldn't) contribute to what the real strengths of this country should be even if he were to escape.
OK, you win the "Most Desperate Unintelligible Attempted (Failed) Presidential Slamming Award."

Congratulations.

what is currently weak about our military/ we already spend more than the next 7 countries put together in military spending.

When you are the world's lone, yes, I say it again, superpower, and aid provider...

Ha, strong economy says who? According to the Bush economic theory if we have a strong economy we should raise taxes so we can pay off the defecit it took to get the strong economy. You can thank Clinton for the military too.

Please forgive my ignorance (and inbreeding) but, how exactly, do you thank Clinton for the Military?

The US might be the only superpower but is definitely not a super aid provider (per capita) compared to other countries.

OK, you win the "Most Desperate Unintelligible Attempted (Failed) Presidential Slamming Award."

Congratulations.

I only did it to see your reaction. :p And far from unintelligible--you have heard the word "allegory" before, I presume?

The US might be the only superpower but is definitely not a super aid provider (per capita) compared to other countries.Per capita means dick. If I'm in a room with five homeless people, our per capita income looks pretty good, but that doesn't tell you who is digging through dumpsters.

Just be sure you wash your hands afterwards Doc

Of course you are right. There is always room to trim the excess in any budget....I would more likely redistribute military spending rather than cutting their budget however. Now isn't the time to screw around with our national defense when we finally have re-established it. Strong military = strong country.

Well, First the republicans under bush SR started the drastic cuts to our military...back in the day that I still voted republican.

Two, doc, you are an educated man. You know that our boy's do not have the basics, likebody protecion and even humvess. How then is our military "strong"? Because we can funnel large numbers of them into a fight, overwealming the enemy with numbers....of course, at a terrible cost. Civil war was fought like that.

Look at wwII. In island fighting against japan, they were a "strong", at least in numbers, army....but were not well equiped...so we would kill many more of them then we would lose, on average...there are some nasty exceptions, and I have the privalage of knowing a few men who served in some real nasty crap in the pacific. Remind me sometime to tell you about my late client westland....one of the marines who held henderson field. That was a man!

Please forgive my ignorance (and inbreeding) but, how exactly, do you thank Clinton for the Military?

Ok, Ok...I hurt your feelings and I am sorry! Really, I ment the whole thing as a joke, sort of like the old.."jane you ignorant slut" SNL skit... hence the emoticon!

Really, I am sorry!!

I mean that!

As we speak, I have a small tanto knife posed above my little finger...say the word, it is yours..... :eek:

Two, doc, you are an educated man. You know that our boy's do not have the basics, likebody protecion and even humvess. How then is our military "strong"?Funny, I never read any of their complaints on this anonymous forum about not being taken care of. In fact, they have unanimously claimed the opposite. Now I realize that the military culture frowns on such complaints, but you would think that on an anonymous forum with so many military members (and on the SVT forum I follow with exponentially more military) that there would be a few who would speak up about the lack of basic equipment they are being forced to make due without.

Nope, it's just the nonmilitary liberal agenda-laden whiners who write such things. Imagine that.

Get over it, you and your ilk do not speak for the military. Nor do I claim to, but I reserve the right to observe what I see, and it is different from what you see, I suppose. And I see that the military population voted for Bush in a much higher percentage than the civilian population.

Our military is strong not only because of the strong support of their Commander in Chief, but because they are badasses who will destroy any opposition and not quit until their job is finished.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040430.shtml

Ok, Ok...I hurt your feelings and I am sorry! Really, I ment the whole thing as a joke, sort of like the old.."jane you ignorant slut" SNL skit... hence the emoticon!

Really, I am sorry!!

I mean that!

As we speak, I have a small tanto knife posed above my little finger...say the word, it is yours..... :eek:

I am not hurt...just confused. I am still trying to figure out how you knew.

Our military is strong not only because of the strong support of their Commander in Chief, but because they are badasses who will destroy any opposition and not quit until their job is finished.



AMEN!

Our military is strong not only because of the strong support of their Commander in ChiefSuch strong support that he sent them to war, without proper equipment in many cases, in a war he didn't have to start, and certainly sooner that he had to start it (even assuming, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the war was necessary).

Personally, were I in the military, I would much rather have the support of someone who used more that mere words to show his support.

Personally, were I in the military, I would much rather have the support of someone who used more that mere words to show his support.
Fortunately, our military is chock full of people much better than you in every way.

So you can feel safe while you do your little meaningless internet sniping at their Commander in Chief.

Fortunately, our military is chock full of people much better than you in every way.

So you can feel safe while you do your little meaningless internet sniping at their Commander in Chief.My, but you have a quick wit, "doc." :rolleyes: Nice way to avoid the substance of my comment, but we're all used to the personal attacks from you when even you can't come up with new drivel.

Welcome back, Oranje. :D Thanks friend. I spent a few moments answering some of the "progressives" questions ... when they managed to be civil. Thanks for taking your shift.

I'm tired of supporting lazy bastards ...Do you think 100,000 or 500,000 would be an appropriate first order on those bumper stickers? :D

Cheer,
Oranje

Such strong support that he sent them to war, without proper equipment in many cases, in a war he didn't have to start, and certainly sooner that he had to start it (even assuming, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the war was necessary).

Personally, were I in the military, I would much rather have the support of someone who used more that mere words to show his support.

I am amazed at the people that have never embraced the military, in any way, can actually say that, strategically, we should wait to go until after each and every person has each and every supply readily available, before going. You make it sound like they were not given weapons to defend themselves. Yes, it would be nice if everyone had an "invisible shield", but the practicality was that we needed to strike.

When COULD the Iraq war start? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden long ago, but because he was not seen as an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and chose not to take that opportunity, we got to see what the lack of preemptiveness (is that a word :confused:?) produced on September 11th, 2001.

How many disregaded resolutions does it take? I know, "The inspectors were on the case"...unfortunately, led around by Saddam caravans, to pre-approved locations, which we ALL know were "sanitized" before the inspectors arrived. Embassy bombings, U.S. Naval ships attacked in port...I will tell you one thing, there will not be any more plane hijackings, because we brave Americans know what is at stake, and will sacrifice our lives for the greater good, without waiting for body armor.

I am amazed at the people that have never embraced the military, in any way, can actually say that, strategically, we should wait to go until after each and every person has each and every supply readily available, before going. You make it sound like they were not given weapons to defend themselves. Yes, it would be nice if everyone had an "invisible shield", but the practicality was that we needed to strike.Well, given that this was not a case where we had to respond to anything, since Iraq wasn't doing anything to us, might it have made sense to get our ducks lined up first? Bush beat the war drum against Iraq for well over a year; a little planning might have been in order before attacking. :rolleyes: Ready, fire, aim is a pretty stupid way to run a war.

When COULD the Iraq war start? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden long ago, but because he was not seen as an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and chose not to take that opportunity, we got to see what the lack of preemptiveness (is that a word :confused:?) produced on September 11th, 2001. Never has the word "confused" seemed more appropriate, but just aimed (there's that aim problem again) in the wrong direction. Do you actually think that there was any connection between Bin Laden and Iraq? FYI--There was none. Now, there certainly was a connection between Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and nobody's griping about taking out the Taliban; however, there was also a very strong connection between Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia is one of those totalitarian regimes we like. :rolleyes:

How many disregaded resolutions does it take? I know, "The inspectors were on the case"...unfortunately, led around by Saddam caravans, to pre-approved locations, which we ALL know were "sanitized" before the inspectors arrived. Embassy bombings, U.S. Naval ships attacked in port...I will tell you one thing, there will not be any more plane hijackings, because we brave Americans know what is at stake, and will sacrifice our lives for the greater good, without waiting for body armor.The inspectors found nothing because there was nothing to find. If there were anything, Bush sure would have trotted it out long ago. As for Embassy bombings, ships attacked in port, what does that have to do with Iraq? Nothing.

Quit drinking Bush's Kool Aid and get your facts straight.

Well, given that this was not a case where we had to respond to anything, since Iraq wasn't doing anything to us, might it have made sense to get our ducks lined up first? Bush beat the war drum against Iraq for well over a year; a little planning might have been in order before attacking. :rolleyes: Ready, fire, aim is a pretty stupid way to run a war.

Never has the word "confused" seemed more appropriate, but just aimed (there's that aim problem again) in the wrong direction. Do you actually think that there was any connection between Bin Laden and Iraq? FYI--There was none. Now, there certainly was a connection between Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and nobody's griping about taking out the Taliban; however, there was also a very strong connection between Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia is one of those totalitarian regimes we like. :rolleyes:

The inspectors found nothing because there was nothing to find. If there were anything, Bush sure would have trotted it out long ago. As for Embassy bombings, ships attacked in port, what does that have to do with Iraq? Nothing.

Quit drinking Bush's Kool Aid and get your facts straight.

The real question is, "What does Saddam have to do with terrorism?" Which, is everything. I believe, after the bombings, we ALL agreed to seek out terrorism and DESTROY it. No one, including The President, said there WAS a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq (although we know there is), it is the ongoing pursuit of terrorists. Saddam had mock-ups of 737s, training camps, for what, the children's summer school programs?

BTW, did you see someone use the Kool-Aid thing in one of the previous posts and decide to regurgitate it?

The real question is, "What does Saddam have to do with terrorism?" Which, is everything. I believe, after the bombings, we ALL agreed to seek out terrorism and DESTROY it. No one, including The President, said there WAS a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq (although we know there is), it is the ongoing pursuit of terrorists. Saddam had mock-ups of 737s, training camps, for what, the children's summer school programs?

BTW, did you see someone use the Kool-Aid thing in one of the previous posts and decide to regurgitate it?First you accuse Iraq of being in bed with Bin Laden, embassy bombings, ship bombings and whatever else. When I call you on that, pointing out that it's completely wrong, you shrug that off, and wave the "terrorism" flag. That dog don't hunt, either. There is absolutely no evidence that the Iraqi regime was exporting terror.

It's nonsense to say that Bush didn't do his very best to convince the American people that there was a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq; heck, you're still convinced! I love the "although we know there is" some connection between Bin Laden and Iraq.... :rolleyes: No, even your fearless leader has acknowledged that, well, maybe there wasn't any such connection.

For those too young or ignorant to know, the reference to Kool Aid I make from time to time refers to the followers of Jim Jones, who blindly drank his poisoned Kool Aid, blindly doing everything their warped leader told them. It seems remarkably apt when considering the way so many of Bush's followers love everything about him; will never criticize him or believe criticism of him, seemingly perfectly willing to follow him as he leads us God knows where, without question.

Oh, and would you care to respond to the criticism of your fearless leader's rushing headlong into war without providing our soldiers proper equipment for the war, and explain why that was necessary?

So apparently bin Laden is no longer in the US sights? I am confused particularly by Bush's quotes himself.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." — George Bush,Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." — George Bush,Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

So apparently bin Laden is no longer in the US sights? I am confused particularly by Bush's quotes himself.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." — George Bush,Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." — George Bush,Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002Actually, I believe that Bush was telling the truth in the second quote. It's much easier to throw out these "terror alerts," which accomplish nothing except scaring people and, when nothing happens, convinces the credulous that Bush is doing a marvelous job of protecting us (like the drunk on the bus shooting elephants on Fifth Avenue with his fingers; when told there are no elephants, the drunk acknowledges that he's a very good shot) when Bin Laden is still alive. Bush needs Bin Laden to continue to scare us while he whacks away at the bill of rights (except the second amendment, of course), and convinces so many that he's doing such a great job.

^ strongly agree!

When COULD the Iraq war start? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden long ago, but because he was not seen as an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and chose not to take that opportunity, we got to see what the lack of preemptiveness (is that a word :confused:?) produced on September 11th, 2001.

How many disregaded resolutions does it take? I know, "The inspectors were on the case"...unfortunately, led around by Saddam caravans, to pre-approved locations, which we ALL know were "sanitized" before the inspectors arrived. Embassy bombings, U.S. Naval ships attacked in port...I will tell you one thing, there will not be any more plane hijackings, because we brave Americans know what is at stake, and will sacrifice our lives for the greater good, without waiting for body armor.

Here's a little something. Wars that aren't planned well (which you call necessary haste) create terrorists. I see your mad at Clinton for not getting Bin Laden. Are you mad at Reagan for creating him? Are you mad at Reagan for funding terrorism?

Here's a little something. Wars that aren't planned well (which you call necessary haste) create terrorists. I see your mad at Clinton for not getting Bin Laden. Are you mad at Reagan for creating him? Are you mad at Reagan for funding terrorism?


How about being made at Reagan and Bush for helping Iraq, and turning thier backs when our then ally used chemical weapons? This can not be stated enough..we were helping a man who used poison gas!!!

Like who else.....? Of yes...nazis and zyklon b!!

Why can you guys not GET IT! We are not anti american, or anti military...we are trying to protec the very foundation of the USA, the very thing that makes us great, and set's us apart from the world. We are, in fact, the, last true patriots.

We are in a struggle to save the very soul of this great country...why can you not see that?

Here's a little something. Wars that aren't planned well (which you call necessary haste) create terrorists. I see your mad at Clinton for not getting Bin Laden. Are you mad at Reagan for creating him? Are you mad at Reagan for funding terrorism?

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance and blew it. The fact that Reagan 'created' him is irrelivant. The point is he became what he was and needed to be neutralized. So since Reagan, again, 'created' him, we, in essance DESERVED what hapenned on 9/11? You guys are right. The last true patriots.

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance and blew it.

Even if demonstrable (a dubious proposition at best), is Clinton blowing a chance any worse than Bush's apparent complete disregard of bin Laden? Or, is Bush just pulling our collective leg. If so, then he's some punster. Repeat:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance and blew it. The fact that Reagan 'created' him is irrelivant. The point is he became what he was and needed to be neutralized. So since Reagan, again, 'created' him, we, in essance DESERVED what hapenned on 9/11? You guys are right. The last true patriots.


He did not say we deserved it...but it was the inevitable outcome of the rebublican agenda of the 80's. And we are all in agreement...he needs to be removed. The problem is that he has not been! We diverted so many resources to iraq, for nothing, and still do not have the real, and only problem.

Actually, I believe that Bush was telling the truth in the second quote. It's much easier to throw out these "terror alerts," which accomplish nothing except scaring people and, when nothing happens, convinces the credulous that Bush is doing a marvelous job of protecting us (like the drunk on the bus shooting elephants on Fifth Avenue with his fingers; when told there are no elephants, the drunk acknowledges that he's a very good shot) when Bin Laden is still alive. Bush needs Bin Laden to continue to scare us while he whacks away at the bill of rights (except the second amendment, of course), and convinces so many that he's doing such a great job.

This is gonna hurt...the terror alert system has been laughable from the start. I have always thought it was the most ridiculous thing to come out of the new Homeland Security 'vision'. The whole premise of being extra aware only when your beckoned, and have different levels of awareness. Security should always be tight. However, it did not take long for people to 'forget' and start complaining about being harassed. We do not want to inconvenience Americans for a little well needed security. So, let's just give them 'selective security' with the alerts.

However, you say there is no proof, I say there is. So, for what were the mock-ups and training camps? I did not see an answer to that question. I love how you claim I gloss over your responses, yet YOU seem to be very well versed in it. I can continue to refute you and you me, but that does not really prove anything. Even when quotes stare you staight in the face (not in my posts, because it is a waste when you don't actually read them anyway), you all just bring up some other useless point to make.

And my last point for you to ignore...I did not say that Saddam was exporting terror (although he was)... I said he was and is A TERRORIST, which, lets say it together this time, we ALL agreed, after 9/11, needed to be snuffed (terrorism, that is).

How about being made at Reagan and Bush for helping Iraq, and turning thier backs when our then ally used chemical weapons? This can not be stated enough..we were helping a man who used poison gas!!!



The enemy of mine enemy...well, you know how it goes. Although Patton had a different vision, we were also allies with Russia at one point. Iran was the biggest threat at the time. And by tipping your hand, you came out with exactly the reason Saddam needed dealt with. Gassing the Curds, his own people but not wanting to share his 'values'. I think that is some form of terrorism.

For those too young or ignorant to know, the reference to Kool Aid I make from time to time refers to the followers of Jim Jones, who blindly drank his poisoned Kool Aid, blindly doing everything their warped leader told them. It seems remarkably apt when considering the way so many of Bush's followers love everything about him; will never criticize him or believe criticism of him, seemingly perfectly willing to follow him as he leads us God knows where, without question.



His followers were no more blind than you for believing passionately what you believe, or I for doing the same. They did not just walk in one day and say "I believe". It was a long indoctrination into gaining their trust, and then he saddistically using that trust. Extreme, yes.

Then you could also say that militant Muslims are blind. What they believe, to me, is disgusting, but they are just as passionate and truly BELIEVE as we two here, hence the forum bickerfest.

Thanks for the tidbit, anyway.

The enemy of mine enemy...well, you know how it goes. Although Patton had a different vision, we were also allies with Russia at one point. Iran was the biggest threat at the time. And by tipping your hand, you came out with exactly the reason Saddam needed dealt with. Gassing the Curds, his own people but not wanting to share his 'values'. I think that is some form of terrorism.
\
When he was gassing iran, we were giving him aid.....

And he was the ruler of iraq...what is the differance between the ruler of SA and a terrorist. If we do not like you, you are a terrorist? I do not get it.

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance and blew it. The fact that Reagan 'created' him is irrelivant. The point is he became what he was and needed to be neutralized. So since Reagan, again, 'created' him, we, in essance DESERVED what hapenned on 9/11? You guys are right. The last true patriots.These conclusory statements are meaningless. How did Clinton "have the chance and blow it?" Some facts, please, since I have no idea of what you are referring to. Why is Clinton a demon for "blowing it," if he actually did, but Reagan is blameless for creating him? Who said we deserve Bin Laden? Sheesh....

This is gonna hurt...the terror alert system has been laughable from the start. I have always thought it was the most ridiculous thing to come out of the new Homeland Security 'vision'. The whole premise of being extra aware only when your beckoned, and have different levels of awareness. Security should always be tight. However, it did not take long for people to 'forget' and start complaining about being harassed. We do not want to inconvenience Americans for a little well needed security. So, let's just give them 'selective security' with the alerts.You don't know how refreshing it is to finally hear a conservative take a little poke at goings on. You can like a guy and still think he's not perfect (God knows, I didn't think Clinton was perfect, but I did think he was a pretty good president).

However, you say there is no proof, I say there is. So, for what were the mock-ups and training camps? I did not see an answer to that question. I love how you claim I gloss over your responses, yet YOU seem to be very well versed in it. I can continue to refute you and you me, but that does not really prove anything. Even when quotes stare you staight in the face (not in my posts, because it is a waste when you don't actually read them anyway), you all just bring up some other useless point to make.I am not aware of any mockups or whatever in Iraqi territory, with which the Iraqi regime was in cahoots. As you accuse me of ignoring your prose, please keep in mind that you are the one who keeps insisting, despite all the evidence, that there was a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, justifying the invasion.

And my last point for you to ignore...I did not say that Saddam was exporting terror (although he was)... I said he was and is A TERRORIST, which, lets say it together this time, we ALL agreed, after 9/11, needed to be snuffed (terrorism, that is).You can say that he was a terrorist all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Show me actual evidence. He was a horrible man, who treated his countrymen horribly, murdering and torturing thousands of them. Nobody disputes that. But find me some credible evidence that he was a legitimate threat to the US, and maybe we can talk.

The enemy of mine enemy...well, you know how it goes. Although Patton had a different vision, we were also allies with Russia at one point. Iran was the biggest threat at the time. And by tipping your hand, you came out with exactly the reason Saddam needed dealt with. Gassing the Curds, his own people but not wanting to share his 'values'. I think that is some form of terrorism.Nonsense and more nonsense. He was horribly abusing his own people; that's not terrorism, it 's just a horrible despot. There's no shortage of them in the world, or even in the Arab world (don't look too closely at our "friends" in Saudi Arabia). "Enemy of our enemy" indeed! Just because we didn't like Iran, we propped up, and funded, Saddam Hussein, and that's ok?

Spider, you are also on my list of people to have a beer with...Boy that will be some conversation...

Spider, you are also on my list of people to have a beer with...Boy that will be some conversation... :p

Spider, you are also on my list of people to have a beer with...Boy that will be some conversation...

What a boring event that would be. Sitting there all night agreeing with each other? :D

What a boring event that would be. Sitting there all night agreeing with each other? :D

I would have to invite you along...I figure I probably owe you one for my poor attempt at a joke. But then it would be three of us arguing with you all night. That would not be so much fun.

And it may be like star trek matter and anti matter..if we got together, we could all implode! :eek:

What a boring event that would be. Sitting there all night agreeing with each other? :DDriving fine cars to have a beer and agree sure beats the heck out of staring at a screen and bashing each other. :)

Yeah, but I think this is how it would go down.

papipto would drive up, ask "which one is klegg"

Then, he would beat the s^%$ out of me.

Then you three would go have a beer, served by a hot waitress, with a nice ice cold mug to shrink the knucle swelling

I end up getting a colonic from a big hairy male nurse....not to mention traction..

No, I think yelling at the moniter is better!! :p

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance and blew it. The fact that Reagan 'created' him is irrelivant. The point is he became what he was and needed to be neutralized. So since Reagan, again, 'created' him, we, in essance DESERVED what hapenned on 9/11? You guys are right. The last true patriots.

I've missed all the fun and the beers :(

I don't know where exactly I ever expressed that we deserved it. I don't know what kind of "War on Terror" you plan on running if you don't look at what creates Terrorists, and then try to prevent them from being created. These guys were not called Terrorists as long as they were on our side. A solution that recreates the problem it is trying to fix is not a solution.

That said, buy me a beer and I'll get you arrested ;).

I would have to invite you along...I figure I probably owe you one for my poor attempt at a joke. But then it would be three of us arguing with you all night. That would not be so much fun.

And it may be like star trek matter and anti matter..if we got together, we could all implode! :eek:

I will come, as long as my sister is invited.

Driving fine cars to have a beer and agree sure beats the heck out of staring at a screen and bashing each other. :)

Would you really exclude me because we do not agree? That is what makes this country what it is. I certainly hope you do not think I am bashing you or you me, for that matter. Unfortunately, as slowly as it seems that I collect my thoughts here, it takes hours in person. You would never hear a word out of me.

BTW, I am not STARING at the screen, I am also watching a very informative "What Not To Wear" on TLC.

Would you really exclude me because we do not agree? That is what makes this country what it is. I certainly hope you do not think I am bashing you or you me, for that matter. Unfortunately, as slowly as it seems that I collect my thoughts here, it takes hours in person. You would never hear a word out of me.

BTW, I am not STARING at the screen, I am also watching a very informative "What Not To Wear" on TLC.Of course not; some of my best friends are practically fascists, and as long as we stay out of politics (especially gun control :eek: ), all is well! My comment was in response to yours that it would be boring for just the two of us to be there, agreeing with each other. :)

I've missed all the fun and the beers :(

I don't know where exactly I ever expressed that we deserved it. I don't know what kind of "War on Terror" you plan on running if you don't look at what creates Terrorists, and then try to prevent them from being created. These guys were not called Terrorists as long as they were on our side. A solution that recreates the problem it is trying to fix is not a solution.

That said, buy me a beer and I'll get you arrested ;).


Your invited...I will buy you a coke. (before they take me to the hospital)

...Why is Clinton a demon for "blowing it," if he actually did, ....I'm confused; I thought it was Monica who blew it. :confused:

I'm confused; I thought it was Monica who blew it. :confused:


Ah, If only I was not married, and afraid of you... :rolleyes:

I notice none of you deny that Clinton had the chance (to capture Bin Laden) and blew it. Sorry. I've been busy the past couple of days and haven't had the time to do all the fact checking and posting required to deal with bilge such as this. I notice that the details and sources of this story haven't been cited, so here's what is known.

A fellow named Ijaz Mansoor claimed that in 1996 he brought an offer from his friends in the Sudan to extradite Bin Laden to the US in return for dropping sanctions against the Sudanese regime. (You might remember the Sudanese regime; they're the ones committing genocide in Darfur at the present time.) Mr. Mansoor, now a paid commentator for Faux News and in those days a paid lobbyist for the Sudanese government, claimed that the Clinton White House "turned down the offer."

Like many of the stories circulating on the far right of the internet (and on Faux News), this one has a few bits of fact sprinkled about on a large amount of propaganda and misrepresentation.

First, it is unclear if the offer was ever made. Mr. Mansoor is the only source for the story and it's denied by Clinton administration officials. Second, even if it was made informally, in 1996 the US had no way to legally extradite Bin Laden since at the time he had not been charged with a crime in the US. (This was back in the days when the US actually cared about following international law.) The Clinton administration may also have decided that supporting the removal of sanctions against a demonstrably terrorist regime which even at the time was engaged in genocide was a rather high price to pay for Bin Laden. Again, that was back in the days when the US wouldn't ignore such behavior on the part of nations just to get their support for our foreign policy. (e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.)

What did happen, however, was that the US applied strong pressure to the Sudan to kick Bin Laden out of the country and to send him to Saudi Arabia where he had been charged with various crimes. Unfortunately, our Saudi friends (and business partners of the Bush family) refused to take him, fearing that putting him on trial would be extremely unpopular in Saudi Arabia. (Not an unreasonable concern given that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that Saudi money was flowing freely to Al Quaeda.) As a result, Bin Laden went uncaptured from the Sudan to Afghanistan.

In any event, this story has been refuted repeatedly, but that hasn't stopped the Faux Network from repeatedly dredging it up again. However, as the analysis below indicates, the story was the subject of an investigation by the 9/11 Commission which found "no reliable evidence to support" it.

To wit...
Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity (http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=hannity) thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf) "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008), the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article (http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919) on right-wing news website NewsMax.com (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406010002) that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. (Clinton's statements are posted here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml)).

From the July 20 edition of The Sean Hannity Show (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150001):HANNITY: [W]e've got Bill Clinton on tape admitting he was offered by the Sudan to get Osama bin Laden and he didn't take them. They have the video tape and they ignored it.

[...]

HANNITY: How can you plead with the Saudis to take Osama bin Laden if you don't have Osama bin Laden? How can you say, [imitating Bill Clinton] "At the time, he committed no crime against America, so I couldn't bring him here." How could you even contemplate bringing him here if that offer from the Sudan wasn't real and viable?

Hannity attempted to bolster his assertion that the Sudanese offer of bin Laden was "real and viable" by citing "evidence gathered by the 9-11 Commission": HANNITY: I think another source of potentially damaging revelations as far as the Clinton people would be concerned, evidence gathered by the 9/11 Commission backing up the allegation that President Clinton refused the offer from the government of Sudan for Osama bin Laden, which is a tape that we have been pointing out to you often.

The "evidence" to which Hannity referred is the 9-11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." Hannity, therefore, endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

While Hannity had asserted on his radio program that the 9-11 Commission had "gathered" evidence "backing up the allegation" that Clinton had refused an offer for bin Laden, two days later -- on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes -- he claimed the commission had "ignored" the allegation. Referring to Clinton's 2002 address to the Long Island Association, Hannity said: "[D]oesn't that seem to validate the idea that the Sudan in fact did offer us bin Laden and we passed on him and that the commission ignored that? Are they not ignoring one of the most important failures of our intelligence leading up to this attack?"

As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008), Clinton further refuted the allegation in a June 20 interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/60minutes/main624848.shtml) on CBS's 60 Minutes. He said: "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."

Would you like to try again?

I'm confused; I thought it was Monica who blew it. :confused:ROFL

Sorry. I've been busy the past couple of days and haven't had the time to do all the fact checking and posting required to deal with bilge such as this. I notice that the details and sources of this story haven't been cited, so here's what is known.



Well there you go again, checking facts! No one wants to hear the truth, it much better to put your brain in auto pilot.....next you will claim that our gov't drew a link between iraq and bin laden, and then you will try to say that we had proof that iraq had WMD. Gosh, you liberals are all alike using facts.....all the right really needs is faith. :rolleyes:

Sorry. I've been busy the past couple of days and haven't had the time to do all the fact checking and posting required to deal with bilge such as this. I notice that the details and sources of this story haven't been cited, so here's what is known.

A fellow named Ijaz Mansoor claimed that in 1996 he brought an offer from his friends in the Sudan to extradite Bin Laden to the US in return for dropping sanctions against the Sudanese regime. (You might remember the Sudanese regime; they're the ones committing genocide in Darfur at the present time.) Mr. Mansoor, now a paid commentator for Faux News and in those days a paid lobbyist for the Sudanese government, claimed that the Clinton White House "turned down the offer."

Like many of the stories circulating on the far right of the internet (and on Faux News), this one has a few bits of fact sprinkled about on a large amount of propaganda and misrepresentation.

First, it is unclear if the offer was ever made. Mr. Mansoor is the only source for the story and it's denied by Clinton administration officials. Second, even if it was made informally, in 1996 the US had no way to legally extradite Bin Laden since at the time he had not been charged with a crime in the US. (This was back in the days when the US actually cared about following international law.) The Clinton administration may also have decided that supporting the removal of sanctions against a demonstrably terrorist regime which even at the time was engaged in genocide was a rather high price to pay for Bin Laden. Again, that was back in the days when the US wouldn't ignore such behavior on the part of nations just to get their support for our foreign policy. (e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.)

What did happen, however, was that the US applied strong pressure to the Sudan to kick Bin Laden out of the country and to send him to Saudi Arabia where he had been charged with various crimes. Unfortunately, our Saudi friends (and business partners of the Bush family) refused to take him, fearing that putting him on trial would be extremely unpopular in Saudi Arabia. (Not an unreasonable concern given that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that Saudi money was flowing freely to Al Quaeda.) As a result, Bin Laden went uncaptured from the Sudan to Afghanistan.

In any event, this story has been refuted repeatedly, but that hasn't stopped the Faux Network from repeatedly dredging it up again. However, as the analysis below indicates, the story was the subject of an investigation by the 9/11 Commission which found "no reliable evidence to support" it.

To wit...
Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity (http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=hannity) thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf) "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008), the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article (http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919) on right-wing news website NewsMax.com (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406010002) that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. (Clinton's statements are posted here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml)).

From the July 20 edition of The Sean Hannity Show (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150001):HANNITY: [W]e've got Bill Clinton on tape admitting he was offered by the Sudan to get Osama bin Laden and he didn't take them. They have the video tape and they ignored it.

[...]

HANNITY: How can you plead with the Saudis to take Osama bin Laden if you don't have Osama bin Laden? How can you say, [imitating Bill Clinton] "At the time, he committed no crime against America, so I couldn't bring him here." How could you even contemplate bringing him here if that offer from the Sudan wasn't real and viable?

Hannity attempted to bolster his assertion that the Sudanese offer of bin Laden was "real and viable" by citing "evidence gathered by the 9-11 Commission": HANNITY: I think another source of potentially damaging revelations as far as the Clinton people would be concerned, evidence gathered by the 9/11 Commission backing up the allegation that President Clinton refused the offer from the government of Sudan for Osama bin Laden, which is a tape that we have been pointing out to you often.

The "evidence" to which Hannity referred is the 9-11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." Hannity, therefore, endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

While Hannity had asserted on his radio program that the 9-11 Commission had "gathered" evidence "backing up the allegation" that Clinton had refused an offer for bin Laden, two days later -- on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes -- he claimed the commission had "ignored" the allegation. Referring to Clinton's 2002 address to the Long Island Association, Hannity said: "[D]oesn't that seem to validate the idea that the Sudan in fact did offer us bin Laden and we passed on him and that the commission ignored that? Are they not ignoring one of the most important failures of our intelligence leading up to this attack?"

As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008), Clinton further refuted the allegation in a June 20 interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/60minutes/main624848.shtml) on CBS's 60 Minutes. He said: "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."

Would you like to try again?

Thanks for all the research...but did Clinton not also deny anything to do with "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." He is still confused on the definition of "is".

jsh...your post proves my point exactly. I have stated at least a couple times about Clinton's shortcomings in that respect, knowing that you all know to what I am referring. I do not need to do endless research to prepare a response. I actually remember what Shawn Hannity said, and others that sit in my conservative bilge. Being on my side of the aisle, the fact that Clinton refutes it does not convince me. Of course Clinton will deny he had that opportunity and blew it...look what happened. He does not want to be anywhere near that.

jsh...your post proves my point exactly. :confused:

The 9/11 commission, appointed by a republican government, concluded that there is no credible evidence that Clinton ignored an opportunity to get Bin Laden, and that proves that he did?

Curioser and curioser.... You cite Clinton's lies about a private affair as grounds for disbelieving anything he says (and, in fact, believing the opposite of everything he says), but you ignore Bush's lies with which he took us to a war which is now becoming a disaster, and you still believe everything Bush says. :rolleyes:

:confused:

The 9/11 commission, appointed by a republican government, concluded that there is no credible evidence that Clinton ignored an opportunity to get Bin Laden, and that proves that he did?



Yes, that would be Republican logic. when they are right, they are right, when they are wrong they are right. End result, they are always right. :rolleyes:

Yes, that would be Republican logic. when they are right, they are right, when they are wrong they are right. End result, they are always right. :rolleyes:And they'd rather be _far_ right than correct!

jsh...your post proves my point exactly. I have stated at least a couple times about Clinton's shortcomings in that respect, knowing that you all know to what I am referring. I do not need to do endless research to prepare a response. I actually remember what Shawn Hannity said, and others that sit in my conservative bilge. Being on my side of the aisle, the fact that Clinton refutes it does not convince me. Of course Clinton will deny he had that opportunity and blew it...look what happened. He does not want to be anywhere near that. You know, comments like this only reinforce the notion that folks "on (your) side of the aisle" simply can't read. As for doing "endless research," the facts behind the claim that Clinton failed to take the opportunity to capture Bin Laden required all of 10 minutes of "research."

As for "convincing you," nothing could be farther from my intention. It is useful, however, to point out the absence of anything resembling evidence for your assertions for the benefit of those who can read.

And let me save you the trouble. Yes, these comments are condescending. It's difficult to avoid condescension toward those who take Shawn Hannity's ravings seriously, not to mention those whose sources are the government of Sudan.

May be you guys and expalin this phenomen...when a fact, even one created by there own party is wrong...but a myth is right. with it comes another strange thing...you post a fact that supports what you say...and then they say it supports what THEY say. I am seeing it in other threads., were it seems people think that oil drilling is good for the local wild life.

Now, we know it is not a valid debate tool....on a level playing field with people who at least listen. Have the rules changed...is it a 1984 style brainwashing that makes any oter view, no matter what, wrong? I s is a unique, internet thing?

Or has the far right givin up the pretense of logic....like facts, it can be so inconvienant.

No, preconcieved notions affect the capicity to judge the information in an objective manner and use the world as a huge mirror where everything they believe the see reflected right back at them regardless of whether it is or not. People overlook things that are contrary to their beliefs. Most of the time it takes something shocking to change someone's beliefs. This is the first part in arriving to a conclusion, the Evidence. The second part is Community Reinforcement, which plays an important part. As long as their is a Sean Hannity with a viewing community (of Republicans) to reinforce his opinions, beliefs will not change.

Yes, but what does it take to show the belief is wrong...facts do not do it...even when thier own party says it, the still do not except it...how big of a shock does it take?

Generally having loved ones or friends die, an experience on drugs, or some other sort of traumatic experience, like possibly even a car wreck. Or there can be gradual social change over time.

I fear that graduel change is too slow in the present situation..the amount of damage being done is staggering, and there is still more then three years left..

Yes, but what does it take to show the belief is wrong...facts do not do it...even when their own party says it, they still do not except it...how big of a shock does it take?
Lewis Carroll said it best...(His commentary keeps coming up lately.) ;)

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

--Through the Looking Glass

very nice..thank you for that!

:confused:

The 9/11 commission, appointed by a republican government, concluded that there is no credible evidence that Clinton ignored an opportunity to get Bin Laden, and that proves that he did?

Curioser and curioser.... You cite Clinton's lies about a private affair as grounds for disbelieving anything he says (and, in fact, believing the opposite of everything he says), but you ignore Bush's lies with which he took us to a war which is now becoming a disaster, and you still believe everything Bush says. :rolleyes:

That lie was just the funniest. There are many others (could always do a google for ten minutes for you) but the point is...you believe what you believe by the facts you 'research', same for me. I does not matter, obviously, either way, because we believe what we want to believe.

You (lib's) did not seem to have a problem beating the dead horse of Bush's National Guard duty obligation. No 'credible evidence' there. Honorable Discharge. Did he get some priviledges that others may not have, sure. BUT ask any military person who knows an admiral's son (yes I am aware his dad wasn't an Admiral, same goes politically) going through the ranks. The dem's worked that for six years. Even if he had, according to the Clinton presidential platform, shirking the duty to your country is OK. That is where he was discredited, as far as I am concerned.

I do not believe everything President Bush says, nor do I agree with it all, Dr. Kool-Aid. But I do not believe Saddam is not a terrorist, any more than McVeigh is not a terrorist. I believe he trained terrorists, I believe he needed to be removed, I believe the Iraqi people, overall, will be happier in the long run (Japan and Germany seem to have pulled out of it), I believe he HAD WMD, I believe if Saddam had Saudi, which he wanted, the whole world would be in trouble eventually, I believe it was NOT about oil, but yes it was an issue, I believe there were ties to 9/11, because it has been displayed, by some, (google search) that his boys met with their boys in other countries. Blah, blah, blah.

Is it easier to type that you rolled your eyes, or just roll them.

How about that 'Mandate'?

..

But I do not believe Saddam is not a terrorist, any more than McVeigh is not a terrorist. I believe he trained terrorists, I believe he needed to be removed, I believe the Iraqi people, overall, will be happier in the long run (Japan and Germany seem to have pulled out of it), I believe he HAD WMD, I believe if Saddam had Saudi, which he wanted, the whole world would be in trouble eventually, I believe it was NOT about oil, but yes it was an issue, I believe there were ties to 9/11, because it has been displayed, by some, (google search) that his boys met with their boys in other countries. Blah, blah, blah.
Thanks, Your Majesty. Lewis Carroll appreciates your comments.

But I do not believe Saddam is not a terrorist, any more than McVeigh is not a terrorist. I believe he trained terrorists, I believe he needed to be removed, I believe the Iraqi people, overall, will be happier in the long run (Japan and Germany seem to have pulled out of it), I believe he HAD WMD, I believe if Saddam had Saudi, which he wanted, the whole world would be in trouble eventually, I believe it was NOT about oil, but yes it was an issue, I believe there were ties to 9/11, because it has been displayed, by some, (google search) that his boys met with their boys in other countries. Blah, blah, blah.

Is it easier to type that you rolled your eyes, or just roll them.

How about that 'Mandate'?

papito, but I hope you realize that your beliefs have no hard facts behind them. There is no evidence that Saddam trained terrorists. There is no evidence that he had WMDs. There is no evidence that there were ties to 9/11. That's not the official line, anywhere. The 9/11 comission disagrees with all these points. British Intelligence disagrees with all these points. Hans Blix disagrees with all these points. The pentagon disagrees with all these points. The white house disagrees with all these points. There is more evidence that santa is real then there is in any of these beliefs. That's not to say that there is anything wrong to believing in santa. But eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that he doesn't exist.

. There is more evidence that santa is real then there is in any of these beliefs. That's not to say that there is anything wrong to believing in santa. But eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that he doesn't exist.


Santa= satan...and we all know HE exists Ban xmas!!!:rolleyes:

About news reporting and hard facts. Hard facts are hardly reported anymore (no pun intended). Opinion based news is, honestly, easier and less costly than having to follow up on leads that might be false or hiring reporters who know what they're doing, and provides short clips that entertain most people. I guess this is moving towards the linguistic phenomenon known as the Principle of Least Effort. One example is the Swift Boat Veterans, where network news outlets simply reported the claims made, and didn't actually mention whether they were false or not (they were unsubstantiated). On the other hand, Nightline wanted to read out the names of each soldier killed in Iraq as a tribute, something purely factual, but Sinclair Broadcasting refused to show that episode because it was "partisan." Maybe when we actually have news based on fact, informed citizens might actually have a chance at rational discourse.

Just tracking the Bush "mandate"...

The Associated Press March 23, 2005"
More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points."

Jeezus Krist Jsh please post in a different font color. Also, CBS is such a credible respected source for most Conservatives or Evangelicals. I give this post a low convincing factor ;)

Jeezus Krist Jsh please post in a different font color. Also, CBS is such a credible respected source for most Conservatives or Evangelicals. I give this post a low convincing factor ;)



I give it a hich factor...jusat to be argumentative :p

I had trouble reading it also.

Remember those of us with the blue plasma layout when choosing font colors :p

Funny to see those who so quickly discount CBS yet still believe George Bush ;)

Funny to see those who so quickly discount CBS yet still believe George Bush ;)

Yep, how many people at CBS lost their jobs over that whole Bush military thing? :confused:

Oh wait, hold on a sec and let me be politically correct, none of these folks really lost their jobs or were fired outside of the one producer Mary Mapes now did they? Resignations were given for the rest, a very credible news source indeed, they are blazing the way and setting the example for the rest! :rolleyes:

I trust CBS just as much as you probably trust Fox News! :p

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200503%5 CNAT20050308a.html

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/43009.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0503230339mar23,1,2066036.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Actually, the CBS poll is simply contracted with a national polling organization, in their case, I believe the Pew Research Group, as is the Fox Poll, the Washington Post poll, and the polls for USA Today, etc. etc. Although the various polls show slight variation based on natural variance in samples and different question wording, they all show the same pattern, i.e. support for Bush at the beginning of his second term was slightly over 50% and has been declining steadily ever since.

So content yourselves with the belief that somehow the polls are biased, the wrong people are being asked the questions, etc. etc. Fact is that whatever agenda the various news organizations might have, the results come from professional polling organizations that have no reason to share those agendas.

Jeezus Krist Jsh please post in a different font color. Also, CBS is such a credible respected source for most Conservatives or Evangelicals. I give this post a low convincing factor ;)
Sorry, but the "font color" I'm showing is black on a white background. Is that a problem?

And, as noted, convincing "Conservatives and Evangelicals" isn't the objective. Frankly, I"d be delighted if such folks continue to believe that the Bush administration's social security plan and the plan to save Terry Schiavo are generating mountains of support among the American public.

It comes up dark purple on a dark blue backround for me..

It comes up dark purple on a dark blue backround for me.. How bizarre. I can see how that might be a bit of a challenge to read. :D

I'll check my preferences, but that's the only post that's been noted is a problem. Or perhaps this explains why Jason says he has trouble reading my posts. ;)

Edit: The problem seems to be the use of the "plasma" rather than the "oivar" skin. I just switched my "options" and I see what you mean. Must be an interaction between the quoted part of the post and the colors of the "skin."

Man, I can't believe I missed all this until page 14. I didn't even see Doc on this anywhere.

Here are my problems with the switch to private accounts:

1. The history of social security - When it was enacted, it basically had 2 purposes. The first was to move older people out of the workforce to make room for the younger generations. Having a private account invested in the stock market could still do this. So why didn't the government suggest that in the 1930's? They had stocks and bonds back then. Well, they had just gone through another little problem some of you may have heard about called the stock market crash of '29. This event led to the the second purpose which was to insure that the older generation could get a pention when they were moved out of the work force. They knew back then it wasn't safe for the average person to invest their life-savings in the stock market, so they had to create something low-risk and stable.

2. How many fees are there? - Everytime you buy a stock, you pay someone. Everytime you sell a stock, you have to pay someone. Then there are maintenance fees. You also have to worry if the stated fees are what you pay. Schwab had an international stock fund called the fund of funds that said it's expenses were .5% a year. As it turned out, the actual fees you had to pay were 2.5% a year. For me, using my FICA numbers, that would be a difference of $150 a year in fees alone. This would also take away from my investment income and my retirement. I don't have my financial calculator nearby, but I know it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 lost to broker fees. Actually I just found it, $28256.09 lost to broker fees with the industry standard growth projection. So why would I want to lose an entire years salary to a broker?

Jud

So why would I want to lose an entire years salary to a broker?Actually, were I evaluating Bush's proposal selfishly, I would be far better off putting 10% of my contributions into a private account (or even a mattress), if it means that that's really my money like with a 401(k).

My problem with the proposal is that it's a radical and fundamental change in Social Security, most certainly meant as the first strike to phase out the existing system; this is not a "cure," but an execution.

If Bush were honest, he would acknowledge what he's trying to do, and encourage full and open debate on the merits. There certainly are some fundamental, structural problems with the present system (the most glaring being the almost completely unfunded nature of Social Security as a pension plan, which causes the vested liability of the system to continue to climb astronomically). But, of course, he's not interested in honesty, or open debate, so he tells lies and half truths, and hopes that it will work. He would be much better off, and more likely to get somewhere, if he told the truth.

Yep, how many people at CBS lost their jobs over that whole Bush military thing? :confused:

Oh wait, hold on a sec and let me be politically correct, none of these folks really lost their jobs or were fired outside of the one producer Mary Mapes now did they? Resignations were given for the rest, a very credible news source indeed, they are blazing the way and setting the example for the rest! :rolleyes:

I trust CBS just as much as you probably trust Fox News! :p

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200503%5 CNAT20050308a.html

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/43009.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0503230339mar23,1,2066036.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Exactly how many people in this administration lost their jobs for 9/11 or the fake documents and evidence used to say Iraq had WMD? The only proposal I've heard is give the blame to Clinton. Rice was even promoted to Sec State. The people in CBS were called to resign by the executives, and complied, so you could count that as losing their job. How many people were even forced to resign over 9/11 or the false evidence? How many of then recieved medals and promotions?

There have been myriad errors with Fox News, even more so than with CBS, yet nobody has been fired or forced to resign there. Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh keep making statements that are not true with no consequences.

To tell you the truth, I trust CBS as much as Fox News, and as much as Whitehouse statements, which means not very much. In the past year, I have watched more Fox News than CBS. I watched only one 60 Minutes, and it wasn't the National Guard One. I have watched no network news yet this year.

If Bush were honest, he would acknowledge what he's trying to do, and encourage full and open debate on the merits.

If he didn't need to have "Town Meetings" of pre-screened people with previously selected questions and then rehearse five times with a stand-in, which manipulates opinion and provides a false representation of what Americans' concerns, why would he? Pathological reasons? Shouldn't he have learned by now that surrounding himself with Yes-men will provide you with inaccurate intelligence? The whole completely open attempt to manipulate the public is one thing I don't like about this administration.

If he didn't need to have "Town Meetings" of pre-screened people with previously selected questions and then rehearse five times with a stand-in, which manipulates opinion and provides a false representation of what Americans' concerns, why would he? Pathological reasons? Shouldn't he have learned by now that surrounding himself with Yes-men will provide you with inaccurate intelligence? The whole completely open attempt to manipulate the public is one thing I don't like about this administration.For all of the flaws past Democrat administrations have had, a hallmark of Republican administrations has been that "loyalty" is demonstrated by fully agreeing with the boss. IMO, this is a horribly dangerous trait, since it leads to inbred ideas and actions, without being properly vetted, but it's what we're stuck with. Far more healthy would be a President who had close advisors who often did not agree with him, so that he was given the benefit of a variety of educated points of view. The fundamental purpose of the first amendment right of free speech was to assure a vigourous marketplace of ideas, on the theory that the best ones generally will win when all is in the open. It's sad that this administration is so hostile to that concept.

If he didn't need to have "Town Meetings" of pre-screened people with previously selected questions and then rehearse five times with a stand-in, which manipulates opinion and provides a false representation of what Americans' concerns, why would he? Pathological reasons? Shouldn't he have learned by now that surrounding himself with Yes-men will provide you with inaccurate intelligence? The whole completely open attempt to manipulate the public is one thing I don't like about this administration.


WE CAN NOT FORGET THE PAID, PLANTED REPORTERS! wHY AM i CYBERSHOUTING1!!???

papito, but I hope you realize that your beliefs have no hard facts behind them. There is no evidence that Saddam trained terrorists. There is no evidence that he had WMDs. There is no evidence that there were ties to 9/11. That's not the official line, anywhere. The 9/11 comission disagrees with all these points. British Intelligence disagrees with all these points. Hans Blix disagrees with all these points. The pentagon disagrees with all these points. The white house disagrees with all these points. There is more evidence that santa is real then there is in any of these beliefs. That's not to say that there is anything wrong to believing in santa. But eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that he doesn't exist.

Please do not put Hans Blix in the mix. He is just a lap dog for the UN. As for everyone disagreeing with the points...it is not that they disagree...it is that they cannot confirm the intelligence they had.

Saddam IS a terrorist, therefore he trained terrorists. I am still waiting for the response to the 737 mock-ups, other than "I haven't heard about that".

Just to help out, chemical weapons ARE WMDs. Remember the Kurds...hundreds of thousands in unmarked graves? Ring a bell?

Mohammed Atta, some have said, met with Saddam officials in Prague prior to 9/11. How do you confirm that? Sorry, everyone forgot to get a dated photo of them together, in case confirmation was required, and since they were probably sitting out in the open at some street cafe' sharing a latte', I do not see how we could NOT confirm that.

Let's see...Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, where did he take refuge after the destruction of Afganistan? I'll help...Baghdad.

How did those darn Iraqis get caught up with the Afghan detainees? I know, poor folks on vacation, just caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. They all look the same right? Honest mistake.

SANTA IS REAL!!! Try again and thanks for playing.

Thanks, Your Majesty. Lewis Carroll appreciates your comments.

What of my comments were 'impossible' to believe. You do not want to believe any of it, because then you will look a bit silly. Oh, too late.

Please do not put Hans Blix in the mix. He is just a lap dog for the UN. As for everyone disagreeing with the points...it is not that they disagree...it is that they cannot confirm the intelligence they had. OK. Let's begin. (1) Calling someone names is not presenting evidence.

(2) There could be a number of reasons the intelligence couldn't be confirmed. One theory is that the massive stock of WMD's held by Iraq were buried, hidden, and carted away to other countries prior to the war while the US maintained aerial surveillance of the sites where they supposedly were kept. Another theory is that they didn't exist in the first place.

Considering the proven ineptitude of the Iraqi regime and the fact that no evidence whatsoever has turned up to support the first theory, one is more or less left with the second. That, at least, is the conclusion of the Bush administration and 99.99% of the rest of the world.

Some people still believe the first theory. Some people believe the earth is flat.

Saddam IS a terrorist, therefore he trained terrorists. I am still waiting for the response to the 737 mock-ups, other than "I haven't heard about that". (1) Calling someone names is not presenting evidence.

(2) Saddam was a thug, therefore he engaged in sexual intercourse with sheep. See anything wrong with the logic in that syllogism?

(3) Yes, Iraq apparently had mockups of Boeing 737 passenger compartments. Now what might they have been used for? One explanation is that the Iraqi army used them to train people to counter hijacking threats. Yes, that's right. The Iraqis were concerned about their commerical airliners being hijacked by terrorists, not surprising given that Al Qaeda as well as various opposition groups and the Iranians were sworn enemies of Saddam.

Just to help out, chemical weapons ARE WMDs. Remember the Kurds...hundreds of thousands in unmarked graves? Ring a bell? Yup, it does ring a bell. Saddam HAD chemical weapons before they were effectively eliminated and/or stored under the supervision of the UN. They had last been used a decade earlier and were gone by the time the US invaded Iraq. (Well, one qualification. There was a significant amount of chemicals that could be weaponized stored and under UN seal when the US invaded. That supply apparently WAS carted away by looters under the nose of the US occupation when someone forgot to tell the Army to secure the facilities.)

Mohammed Atta, some have said, met with Saddam officials in Prague prior to 9/11. How do you confirm that? Sorry, everyone forgot to get a dated photo of them together, in case confirmation was required, and since they were probably sitting out in the open at some street cafe' sharing a latte', I do not see how we could NOT confirm that. Actually, "some have said" that Jews were warned not to show up at the WTC on 9/11. "Some have said" that there's no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Actually it's not "some" who've said Atta met with Iraqi officials; it's "one" (VP Cheney) who has made that claim and has never presented any evidence or even been able to generate any support for the claim either from within the American intelligence community or among the foreign governments that supposedly provided the intelligence.

Just another example of the vast incredibly successful conspiracy to cover up the truth, I suppose.

Let's see...Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, where did he take refuge after the destruction of Afganistan? I'll help...Baghdad. Actaully, it appears that al-Zarqawi first hung around for awhile among the Kurds in NE Iraq. Then it was off to various destinations before he settled in Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

How did those darn Iraqis get caught up with the Afghan detainees? I know, poor folks on vacation, just caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. They all look the same right? Honest mistake. What Iraqis did you have in mind? The handful that were captured in the Afghan war? The ones who opposed Saddam and went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban? Those guys?

Apparently all Iraqis do "look the same" to you. Just because someone was an Iraqi living outside Iraq doesn't mean he was an agent of Saddam. If you doubt that you might try explaining the composition of the current Iraqi interim government, much of which is made up of expatriates who fled Iraq when Saddam was in power. Were all those guys Saddam's agents?

Sorry, friend. You're still operating in Wonderland. The Queen would be proud of you.

OK. Let's begin. (1) Calling someone names is not presenting evidence.

(2) There could be a number of reasons the intelligence couldn't be confirmed. One theory is that the massive stock of WMD's held by Iraq were buried, hidden, and carted away to other countries prior to the war while the US maintained aerial surveillance of the sites where they supposedly were kept. Another theory is that they didn't exist in the first place.

Considering the proven ineptitude of the Iraqi regime and the fact that no evidence whatsoever has turned up to support the first theory, one is more or less left with the second. That, at least, is the conclusion of the Bush administration and 99.99% of the rest of the world.

Some people still believe the first theory. Some people believe the earth is flat.

(1) Calling someone names is not presenting evidence.

(2) Saddam was a thug, therefore he engaged in sexual intercourse with sheep. See anything wrong with the logic in that syllogism?

(3) Yes, Iraq apparently had mockups of Boeing 737 passenger compartments. Now what might they have been used for? One explanation is that the Iraqi army used them to train people to counter hijacking threats. Yes, that's right. The Iraqis were concerned about their commerical airliners being hijacked by terrorists, not surprising given that Al Qaeda as well as various opposition groups and the Iranians were sworn enemies of Saddam.

Yup, it does ring a bell. Saddam HAD chemical weapons before they were effectively eliminated and/or stored under the supervision of the UN. They had last been used a decade earlier and were gone by the time the US invaded Iraq. (Well, one qualification. There was a significant amount of chemicals that could be weaponized stored and under UN seal when the US invaded. That supply apparently WAS carted away by looters under the nose of the US occupation when someone forgot to tell the Army to secure the facilities.)

Actually, "some have said" that Jews were warned not to show up at the WTC on 9/11. "Some have said" that there's no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Actually it's not "some" who've said Atta met with Iraqi officials; it's "one" (VP Cheney) who has made that claim and has never presented any evidence or even been able to generate any support for the claim either from within the American intelligence community or among the foreign governments that supposedly provided the intelligence.

Just another example of the vast incredibly successful conspiracy to cover up the truth, I suppose.

Actaully, it appears that al-Zarqawi first hung around for awhile among the Kurds in NE Iraq. Then it was off to various destinations before he settled in Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

What Iraqis did you have in mind? The handful that were captured in the Afghan war? The ones who opposed Saddam and went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban? Those guys?

Apparently all Iraqis do "look the same" to you. Just because someone was an Iraqi living outside Iraq doesn't mean he was an agent of Saddam. If you doubt that you might try explaining the composition of the current Iraqi interim government, much of which is made up of expatriates who fled Iraq when Saddam was in power. Were all those guys Saddam's agents?

Sorry, friend. You're still operating in Wonderland. The Queen would be proud of you.

jsh, where do you find the time to answer these in such detail? I think I know the answer--either you're living on a trust fund and don't really work, don't really have a spouse, or (more likely) you're goofing off at work on the Internet . . . just like I do! :p :D :)

jsh, where do you find the time to answer these in such detail? I think I know the answer--either you're living on a trust fund and don't really work, don't really have a spouse, or (more likely) you're goofing off at work on the Internet . . . just like I do! :p :D :)Time to confess, I suppose. I've developed AI software that responds to typical right-wing diatribes with reasoned commentary. It really wasn't as difficult as it might seem since the level of artificial "intelligence" required to recognize and respond appropriately simply called for scanning Faux News broadcasts on a regular basis and running Google to determine the facts.

Unfortunately, I've come to suspect that the "conservative" diatribes also emanate from robo-software. And since the diatribes apparently aren't hamstrung by looking for actual facts, it's probably a losing battle to try to keep up with them. :D

Still more evidence on the Bush administration "mandate."



Bush approval slips to 45%, lowest of his presidency

By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 45%, the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif
The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers. http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif The finding, in a poll of 1,001 adults Monday through Wednesday, is a dip from 52% in a poll taken last week. Bush's previous lowest rating, 46%, was recorded last May.

The White House declined to comment. Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said that Bush is taking on "tough issues, whether it's to reform Social Security, promoting the spread of democracy or making a renewed pitch to Congress to pass comprehensive energy reform."

Independent political analysts said the drop may reflect opposition to the White House and Congress intervening in the Terri Schiavo matter.

"You have to wonder if people didn't feel that the president and the Congress couldn't be spending their time working on Social Security and other problems," said Charlie Cook, editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

On Monday, Bush signed a bill passed in an unusual weekend session of Congress allowing federal courts to take jurisdiction over a decision by Schiavo's husband, Michael, to have her feeding tube removed.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last weekend found that 61% would have a spouse's feeding tube removed under similar circumstances.

The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers.

Bush's handling of the economy also appears to have contributed to the poll's findings.

Bush's economic ratings:

• 59% said economic conditions are getting worse, Bush's highest negative number on the economy in two years.

• 32% rated economic conditions good or excellent, the lowest rating in over a year.

• A Gallup Poll taken in the same period found rising concern about gas costs. Fuel and oil prices tied with unemployment, jobs and wages for top economic concerns.

"Any politician pushing a Social Security privatization plan that cuts benefits and increases the national debt by $4.3 trillion would see his or her approval ratings tumble," said Josh Earnest, Democratic National Committe spokesman.

The margin of error for the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll is +/- 3 percentage points.

Time to confess, I suppose. I've developed AI software that responds to typical right-wing diatribes with reasoned commentary. It really wasn't as difficult as it might seem since the level of artificial "intelligence" required to recognize and respond appropriately simply called for scanning Faux News broadcasts on a regular basis and running Google to determine the facts.

Unfortunately, I've come to suspect that the "conservative" diatribes also emanate from robo-software. And since the diatribes apparently aren't hamstrung by looking for actual facts, it's probably a losing battle to try to keep up with them. :D

In a similar vein, here's a handy site for following Faux News when you're on the run or if your T.V. goes on the blink. You may already be aware of it:

http://www.newshounds.us/

In a similar vein, here's a handy site for following Faux News when you're on the run or if your T.V. goes on the blink. You may already be aware of it:

http://www.newshounds.us/
Yes, I know the site. I love their motto

"We watch Fox News so you don't have to." :D

Hey guys did you cover this?

Mandate my a$$ approval rating for Bush is at 43 percent:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295338/

Looks like he spent all that political capital fast.... :p

Looks like he spent all that political capital fast.... :p
Well, "spending" is something this administration has done more of than any in history. Finding the revenue to cover it...not so much.

I toss him the ball....he shoots...he SCORES!!!! ;)

Well, this thread has become something of a chorus. Guess the Bush Defense Coalition must be feeling the pain, what with the sinking ship of Social Security "reform" and the crash-and-burn of the Schiavo Reinsertionist Movement. But for the fun of it, here's an interesting take on the impact of overreaching on Brother Jeb's political prospects.

It's Good Friday, but the religious right isn't taking the day off. As Terri Schiavo fades to what her father calls (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=613384) her "last hours," Christian conservatives are demanding that Gov. Jeb Bush seize her from her hospice room and re-insert her feeding tube.


"What Bush needs to do is to take in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and say, 'We are here under executive order from the governor . . . and we are taking custody of Terri,'" Randall Terry, the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and a spokesman for Schiavo's parents, told reporters yesterday.

Although Jeb Bush has moved aggressively (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25jeb.html) in the Schiavo case -- he has continued to pursue legal relief even after his brother seems to have given up -- the right says that the governor is failing to fulfill his duties, both morally and legally. Asked on MSNBC last night whether Bush has done enough to save Schiavo, former Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes said: "Of course not. He hasn't done anything. She is being starved to death."

Some of Keyes' compatriots are putting it even more bluntly. In a press statement issued late last night, the anti-abortion group Crossroads for Life beseeched Bush not to "repeat Pontius Pilate's mistake this Good Friday." Drawing parallels to the death of the Christ -- Jesus' mother was named Mary, and so is Terri Schiavo's! -- the group said that Bush, like Pontius Pilate, must now ask himself whether he should stake his political career on the life of a single person.

"Now, it is in the hands of the governor, the man who will ultimately choose either to wield the temporal powers of his office to save innocent life, or 'wash his hands' of her," the group says. "To be certain, Jeb Bush has done a great deal on behalf Terri. But how will history remember him if Terri dies? Likely, as a weak, moral coward, who did not have the courage to save a helpless, dying woman from those who so vehemently wished to take her life."

The governor was scheduled to participate in a Good Friday event this afternoon at Florida State University. According to a press release just issued by Patrick Mahoney's Chistian Defense Coalition, Bush pulled out at the last minute "out of fear and guilt of seeing supporters of Terri Schiavo pleading for her life."

While Bush hasn't unequivocally ruled out the idea of seizing Schiavo from her hospice bed, he seemed to recognize yesterday that doing so would exceed his legal authority. "There are a lot of things that go on in society that trouble me, and this is certainly one of them. To have somebody starve to death troubles me greatly," he told reporters gathered in his office. "We have done everything that we can, and we will continue to do so, within the powers that I have."

That's not enough for right-to-life activists like Terry, who helped lead a protest outside Bush's offices today. The Christian right has put Republicans in office all over the country, Terry says. Now it's payback time. "I promise you that if she dies," Terry said yesterday, "there's going to be hell to pay with pro-life, pro-family Republicans."

-- Tim Grieve

Couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

www.salon.com (http://www.salon.com/) is the source. Good site.

A priest outside the hospital said on TV today that bush should use the national guard to storm the hospital..when the reporter pointed out that people would get hurt..the priest said well, I know the guard would win."

This is the best example I can give of the dangers of state sponsered or santioned religon.

It's truly sad that we normal conservatives get lumped in with the psycho uber christian conservatives. I agree with many of Bush's policies (foreign and domestic), but when it comes to intervening in life and death choices and what I should be watching on tv, and other such nonsense, I do not. The current morality-police trend, is frightening to say the least.

As far as Social Security goes, it needs fixing, but not everyone is going to agree with anyone's method of doing so, which will relegate it to second term policy making no matter who's in office. I would, however, prefer to see someone trying to fix it, rather that saying there's not a problem.

It's truly sad that we normal conservatives get lumped in with the psycho uber christian conservatives. I agree with many of Bush's policies (foreign and domestic), but when it comes to intervening in life and death choices and what I should be watching on tv, and other such nonsense, I do not. The current morality-police trend, is frightening to say the least.

.


Now you see, I could have a logical exchange of ideas with you...and I bet we would not yell at each other.

The way I see it, Dems need to get the house in order....but "mainstream" Republicans need to take the leadership of their party back, and reclaim the credibility that is being lost..

I can not help thinking that the world is laughing at us..

It's truly sad that we normal conservatives get lumped in with the psycho uber christian conservatives. I agree with many of Bush's policies (foreign and domestic), but when it comes to intervening in life and death choices and what I should be watching on tv, and other such nonsense, I do not. The current morality-police trend, is frightening to say the least.

As far as Social Security goes, it needs fixing, but not everyone is going to agree with anyone's method of doing so, which will relegate it to second term policy making no matter who's in office. I would, however, prefer to see someone trying to fix it, rather that saying there's not a problem.All good points. Being a resident of Washington State, I can remember a time when the Republican Party included people like Governor/Senator Dan Evans, a dedicated public servant who actually did the GOP proud. And it doesn't take too long a memory to recall figures like Alan Simpson and Barry Goldwater who, though one might disagree with them, represented their views and their constituents eloquently and with integrity.

As Christopher Shays, Republican Reprentative from Connecticut put it, "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."

As far as Social Security is concerned, there's no question that the system has to be tweaked from time to time, just as it has been in the 70 years since it was inaugurated. Bush's "approach," (since he refuses to put forward a "plan,') however, is to change fundamentally the nature of the system from a social insurance to an individual retirement system run in the name of the government, but not by the government.

Fortunately, it appears that most Americans understand what is being proposed and have no interest in getting on board.

It's truly sad that we normal conservatives get lumped in with the psycho uber christian conservatives. I agree with many of Bush's policies (foreign and domestic), but when it comes to intervening in life and death choices and what I should be watching on tv, and other such nonsense, I do not. The current morality-police trend, is frightening to say the least.

As far as Social Security goes, it needs fixing, but not everyone is going to agree with anyone's method of doing so, which will relegate it to second term policy making no matter who's in office. I would, however, prefer to see someone trying to fix it, rather that saying there's not a problem.It is nice to be able to have a civil exchange with someone with whom I often don't agree. :)

I agree that Social Security needs significant fixes. One could easily make a very compelling argument that it needs a huge overhaul. As I've said before, my problem with Bush's "proposal," such as it is, is that he is not being open and honest--what he is really advocating is a slow starvation of the existing system, while he starts up a new system. The system will go from its present status of being a largely unfunded (in pension-speak), defined-benefit plan, to becoming an individually funded defined contribution plan. This change would benefit high wage earners, who largely support the present plan, and severely hurt lower wage earners, who are the winners under the present system. This is a radical change, by any measure, and Bush explicitly refuses to engage in any meaningful dialogue on this, instead talking at hand-picked audiences with platitudes and half-truths.

It would absolutely mandate huge cuts in future benefits in the existing system, of perhaps 40%, as more of us baby boomers retire and there are fewer people funding the existing program, with a smaller portion of their withholdings.

But Bush is trying to sell this as merely a tweak. And it's not working. :cool:

It is nice to be able to have a civil exchange with someone with whom I often don't agree. :)

I agree that Social Security needs significant fixes. One could easily make a very compelling argument that it needs a huge overhaul. As I've said before, my problem with Bush's "proposal," such as it is, is that he is not being open and honest--what he is really advocating is a slow starvation of the existing system, while he starts up a new system. The system will go from its present status of being a largely unfunded (in pension-speak), defined-benefit plan, to becoming an individually funded defined contribution plan. This change would benefit high wage earners, who largely support the present plan, and severely hurt lower wage earners, who are the winners under the present system. This is a radical change, by any measure, and Bush explicitly refuses to engage in any meaningful dialogue on this, instead talking at hand-picked audiences with platitudes and half-truths.

It would absolutely mandate huge cuts in future benefits in the existing system, of perhaps 40%, as more of us baby boomers retire and there are fewer people funding the existing program, with a smaller portion of their withholdings.

But Bush is trying to sell this as merely a tweak. And it's not working. :cool:

I'm impressed to hear someone combine "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" in the same sentence. Makes me feel like I didn't take the day off from work after all. :)

Either way, I don't think there's a lot of daylight between many of us on what the Bush administration is doing here. I almost get the impression that someone said, "Hey, George needs something to do. Let's give him a project and send him on his way. Who cares if he doesn't know anything about it?"

I'm impressed to hear someone combine "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" in the same sentence. Makes me feel like I didn't take the day off from work after all. :)I'm a recovering actuary (I actually was an actuary at Social Securty for a year, long ago :eek: ); everyone falls off the wagon once in a while. :p

I took the day off today, too, to drive to a HPDE 300 miles away. Two days of fun starting tomorrow!

I'm a recovering actuary (I actually was an actuary at Social Securty for a year, long ago :eek: ); everyone falls off the wagon once in a while. :p

I took the day off today, too, to drive to a HPDE 300 miles away. Two days of fun starting tomorrow!



You gave up a fed job? For god's sake, why man..why? :eek:

You gave up a fed job? For god's sake, why man..why? :eek:Well, I wasn't having very much fun, and the woman I loved (and still do :) ) was 400 miles away. That was a pretty easy decision--trade a job I didn't like for a woman I did. :p

Well, I wasn't having very much fun, and the woman I loved (and still do :) ) was 400 miles away. That was a pretty easy decision--trade a job I didn't like for a woman I did. :p

The important thing is that you were an actuary, admitted your problem and went through the twelve-step Actuary Recovery Program so that you could be free again. :D Don't worry, I know plenty of others still addicted to mortality tables and interest rates. Perhaps they'll recover someday, too.

The important thing is that you were an actuary, admitted your problem and went through the twelve-step Actuary Recovery Program so that you could be free again. :D Don't worry, I know plenty of others still addicted to mortality tables and interest rates. Perhaps they'll recover someday, too.Yeah, I knew that I was in trouble when I was studying Life Contingencies on my honeymoon. It was time to make a clean break. It's still a struggle sometimes (as you can see from my previous post about pension plans), but I've mostly left those demons behind. :D

How many actuaries do you know who are up with the sun on a Saturday morning, itching to get to the track to drive fast all day? Wait.... When I was at Social Security, the guy who now is Chief Actuary drove an Alfa Spider....

Well, I wasn't having very much fun, and the woman I loved (and still do :) ) was 400 miles away. That was a pretty easy decision--trade a job I didn't like for a woman I did. :p


Ah love. The FBI was recruting heavy at my law school my last year, and they loved me (had straight A's in tax law) But they would have moved me to florida or the west coast for two years. My wife did not want to move away from her parents. I would be 5 years from fully vested now. Ah well...she was worth it.


And now she has the federal job, so it all worked out in the end. :D

No question that Bush would be performing in front of "sympathetic audiences" even without screening the audience and strong arming those who speak up in opposition to his policies. However, if you can point out a single instance of Democrats limiting the audience to those who agree with their position or using security guards to throw out those who express disagreement, you're welcome to post such evidence.

I thought not.

Ignoring the other nonsense you wrote for now... I'll respond to this. I was waiting to get into a Clinton rally in front of the Alamo during his 2nd term reelection campaign. My wife and I had pro-Clinton signs, but we were not allowed into the rally - I guess we hadn't mastered the glazed-over look of the Clinton lovers. Apparently Security had been trained to recognize clear-thinking individuals and turn them away.

Dropped my payload, returning to base... :D

Ignoring the other nonsense you wrote for now... I'll respond to this. I was waiting to get into a Clinton rally in front of the Alamo during his 2nd term reelection campaign. My wife and I had pro-Clinton signs, but we were not allowed into the rally - I guess we hadn't mastered the glazed-over look of the Clinton lovers. Apparently Security had been trained to recognize clear-thinking individuals and turn them away.

Dropped my payload, returning to base... :D

Ah, unverifiable claims...the last refuge of the far right. The offer still stands. Find a verified example and we'll talk. As for your alleged experience, it is worth noting that the Secret Service is trained to recognize those who appear to pose physical threats to the President. Perhaps that was your problem.

Ignoring the other nonsense you wrote for now...D


If the right tells us that facts and truth are "nonsense" enough times...do they become nonsense?

Ah, unverifiable claims...the last refuge of the far right. The offer still stands. Find a verified example and we'll talk. As for your alleged experience, it is worth noting that the Secret Service is trained to recognize those who appear to pose physical threats to the President. Perhaps that was your problem.

Actually I walked up to a Secret Service guy and complimented him on his tie (it was a Limbaugh No Boundaries tie). His exact response to me was "Hey, I just have to protect him - I don't have to like him!".

Yeah, I know, also unverifiable. Republicans are a pack of liars, yadda, yadda...

You guys slay me with your petty, snide remarks...

BTW, I never hated Clinton (a feeling you libs seem to espouse towards our current President). I just never respected him... I big difference between that and vitriolic hatred, which is what I see on this forum from you and others. That's why your 'physical harm' comment is so laughable.

In the words of one of your favorite guys, "I'll give you the last word". Do your worst (I'm sure you won't disappoint).

Gotta go now - I have a Zaino date with my car :)

Actually I walked up to a Secret Service guy and complimented him on his tie (it was a Limbaugh No Boundaries tie). His exact response to me was "Hey, I just have to protect him - I don't have to like him!".

Yeah, I know, also unverifiable. Republicans are a pack of liars, yadda, yadda...


As you say, "unverifiable," and frankly, highly unlikely. Tell you what, though, if you can verify that there are no rules that would prevent a Secret Service Agent on the Presidential protection detail from wearing, say, a button advertsiing Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll donate the $500 I offered to the Texas Republican Party if the Supreme Court reviewed the Schiavo case.

I think in this case, my $500 is even safer.

But I must say, as fantasies go, yours are certainly amusing.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, sir.

Rule #3 for being a liberal: When confronted with the truth, denigrate the person presenting it.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, sir.

Rule #3 for being a liberal: When confronted with the truth, denigrate the person presenting it.


Well, to be fair, that is rule number 1# for the republicans.

Now, I can settle this. My cousin is an investigator with the SS in philly I think she mostly does forgerys inverstigations.

I will ask her, and see what she says.

Ok..here is the email I just sent. I think it is fair.


"A question has come up at the Mazda site, I was hoping you could help me out.

Someone has claimed that they tried to go to a political rally, and this happened.


"Actually I walked up to a Secret Service guy and complimented him on his tie (it was a Limbaugh No Boundaries tie)."

Another member has questioned whether a SS agent could wear a political tie.

Could you let me know please?

B/T/W...how are you doing. Any luck with the jeep?"

I don't appreciate being called a liar, sir.

Rule #3 for being a liberal: When confronted with the truth, denigrate the person presenting it. Tell you what, buddy. Put your money where you mouth is. That's the traditional way to protect your honor. (Short of pistols at 10 paces.) If, in fact, it is even possible for a Secret Service agent serving on a Presidential protection detail to wear a recognizable poltical "tie," you win. You don't even have to prove the details of your story.

And if you lose, you can choose whether to donate the money to your state Democratic Party or to the National Abortion Rights Action League.

I say..put the cash up. :D

Ok. I now have her answer. In the interest of full disclosure, I did have a telephone call with her. She asked me if I was serious, and why I spend so much time on a website about a "silly car" :mad: She also wanted to make sure that I would not post her name or email address. She would not tell me if she had sex last night, or with who. She also would not let me talk to her hot medical student room mate.


So, before I post...guys, do we have a bet?

The tie didn't have to say "Democrats Are Pompous A$$holes" on it. The ones I have seen have no message at all, so maybe the SS guy was making a subtle comment that would have gone unnoticed except for the lone wary Republican in the audience. :rolleyes:

And I doubt there is a rule against wearing a tie with no message or offensive pictures....no matter whose name is on the label.

All I will say is that I have her response. Do we have a bet here guys? Tell me when I can post it.

All I will say is that I have her response. Do we have a bet here guys? Tell me when I can post it.Your response is just as unverifiable as his original post, so who cares? :p

That is true. But, I have never fibbed on this site. I can tell you she is a republican, but she also is honest. I can also say she gives us the info needed to research this topic. I am not trying to sway anyone, nor do I think there will ever be a payout. I just happen to have this connection. But I would at least like to know we are all here when I post what she said. You know, there is a way to verify that she does work for the SS...but it would require everyone to take a mods word on it. It just so happens that her brother was with me at the "top dog" event. I am planing a philly event, just top get a certian mod a lap dance.

She lives in philly, I am sure she would come out with us..and she has her ID card.

(shrugs) It really is not important. I have the email when the partys involved tell me to post it.

By the way doc, her brother is trying to get into med school. I think he takes the mcats in augest. I sent over the "Reactionary" thread, and you have joined me as a hero in his mind. He thinks ER docs are gods, because his collage has a program where he gets to follow them around at the local ER. They actually got him in to a surgery. (the patient had to give written consent.).

The tie didn't have to say "Democrats Are Pompous A$$holes" on it. The ones I have seen have no message at all, so maybe the SS guy was making a subtle comment that would have gone unnoticed except for the lone wary Republican in the audience. :rolleyes:

And I doubt there is a rule against wearing a tie with no message or offensive pictures....no matter whose name is on the label. Well, I must admit that I'm not up to date on Mr. Limbaugh's sartorial line, so it's entirely possible his line of ties is completely apolitical. If that's the case, however, I have to wonder what the point of the post was. That SS agents don't necessarily share the politics of their boss? Wow!

The sub-thread dealt with President Bush packing his audiences with sycophants to promote his Social Security scheme. khoney apparently took exception to my offer (never accepted) to cite a case where the opposition was excluded from public events sponsored by Democratic figures.

His "response" was that he had "not been allowed" into a Clinton rally in 1996 despite carrying a pro-Clinton sign. When I doubted that it was because the Secret Service had been trained to recognize "clear thinking individuals and turn them away," he responded by citing his conversation with a Secret Service agent and claiming the agent expressed his disdain for the President.

Now it's an amusing story, but doesn't it seem a bit far-fetched? That the Secret Service used an otherwise unidentifiable "tie" with Rush Limbaugh's name on the (undisplayed) label to identify "clear thinking individuals and turn them away"? Perhaps the SS also uses the Klan secret handshake to identify other threats to the President. Does the Bush Security Detail have secret identifying apparel meant to attract compliments from Democrats?

Or are we to assume that the tie was the agent's idea, but that after making secret contact with a fellow Republican his sense of duty overcame him and he reported the contact so khoney could be barred from the event?

Sorry. I have no doubt that Secret Service agents may not support the person they protect. (One of the White House SS agents in the Clinton administration even wrote a tell-all memoir after he retired.) What I expressed skepticism about was that there was any documented evidence of Democrats using the same tactics to assure those who disagree with them would not show up in the scripted "town meetings" such as those run by President Bush.

Still waiting for a single documented case of such behavior.

Further, I doubted, and still doubt, that the Secret Service in the Clinton administration was tasked with excluding Republicans in disguise from the President's appearances.

Y'all crack me up. :D :D :D

I wish I could join in the hot dog/lap dance fiesta. Come to think of it, I bet they have both in Chicago. Hmmmmmm. Is that get-together still on?

Just tell me when I can post her email...you will find it interesting, I think.

Tell you what, buddy. Put your money where you mouth is. That's the traditional way to protect your honor. (Short of pistols at 10 paces.) If, in fact, it is even possible for a Secret Service agent serving on a Presidential protection detail to wear a recognizable poltical "tie," you win. You don't even have to prove the details of your story.

And if you lose, you can choose whether to donate the money to your state Democratic Party or to the National Abortion Rights Action League.

No, I'll tell you what, 'buddy'. I don't have to protect my honor, because I know I was telling the truth. Whether you believe it or not is immaterial to me. And I would hardly call a Limbaugh tie a 'political' tie. You obviously wouldn't recognize one if you saw it, just as I'm sure Mr. Clinton wouldn't have.

But keep it up, you're doing a great job of making yourself look ridiculous :)

His "response" was that he had "not been allowed" into a Clinton rally in 1996 despite carrying a pro-Clinton sign. When I doubted that it was because the Secret Service had been trained to recognize "clear thinking individuals and turn them away," he responded by citing his conversation with a Secret Service agent and claiming the agent expressed his disdain for the President.



Just to clarify, I didn't speak with the man until after I'd been denied entrance. You are correct, that would have been far-fetched to believe that a SS man was luring unsuspecting Republicans to his tie like a moth to a flame :D