Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 : 2 : <3> : 4 : 5 . . . . . 24
(bu-jj-mp)
The usual ploy when arguing is to rotate questions.
You probably did it to your mother, remember?
"What happened to your new tennis shoes?" "Which ones?" "The ones you bought last week, not the ones you bought last month" "Oh, nothing..." "Then why are they chewed up?" "Where?" *Mom holds them up in your face and says:* "Right there where the tongue used to be and the laces used to thread!" "It was the dog's fault!" "Didn't I tell you not to leave them outside where the dog could get to them!!!" "Did you say that?"...and so on and so on.
Is SS and privatization tangential or not?
It is real.
But don't you hear the outrageous debate that is going on???!!
You don't hear anything. For two reasons.
SS is the second cousin to Medicare. Medicare is a massive tangle. It is tied up in the states and the federal budget and with SS receipts. Anyone who lets SS out of the box, let's Medicare out too.
AARP and other powerful political groups have all politicians who move against SS in the bullseye. Politicians don't want to vote themselves out of a job, TMO correctly said.
The second reason is the Great Media Machine in this country. They don't want to talk about it.
It's against their valuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeesssss.
Reuters, that great British news agency, said:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The financial outlook for the U.S. Social Security and Medicare program trust funds remained little changed in an annual report on Wednesday, providing little fresh momentum for the Bush administration's warnings of a looming crisis for the retirement system.
"I don't see anything in this report that says, oh my heavens, this is a crisis that we need to address tomorrow," said Kenneth Apfel, Social Security commissioner from 1997 to 2001 under former President Clinton.
That's commentary, boys. Brushing over the issue is, in fact, commentary of the silent kind.
Here are several good reasons to discuss SS:
1. If we don't start planning to fix SS now, it will be unfixable when the time comes. Unless, of course, you like last-minute cramming -- like that term paper in college that you hadn't started writing that was due the next day, for instance. The financial burden will be beyond taxation.
2. If we don't start discussing the fixes now, we aren't going to have time to fix it, either.
3. If it is scheduled to go red in 2017, then why not begin fixing it now so that it will go red possibly in 2075?
4. There is a population bubble that is currently passing down the colon of life and since the US population is actually decreasing, there will be no escaping the SS/Medicare crisis/tsunami.
5. If we discuss SS now, we can discuss Medicare/Medicaid too!
However, Dan Rather has assured us the media is not biased. The “infotainment” industry that typecasts those Republicans as heartless and those Democrats as compassionate.
It’s money, 44. If we just raise taxes, because money solves all the problems. Allocating more money everywhere is the solution to social problems.
See, one example:
CBS: Cruel “Cuts” Hurt Neediest
Reporter Lee Cowan:
“The proposed [Bush budget] cuts hit the heartland like a mountain of unwanted news, from the soy bean fields of Iowa, where farmers marched on the capitol to voice their disgust at slashing farm subsidies, to large cities like Minneapolis, where block grant programs help the homeless and the hungry....The White House calls the budget ‘lean,’ proponents call it difficult but brave. But critics charge the people these cuts hit the hardest tend to have the weakest political voice.”
Robert Greenstein, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: “Cuts in programs for the working poor, low income elderly people, people with disabilities. They tend not to have much in the way of lobbyists. They don’t give campaign contributions.”
Cowan: “....This Dallas health clinic serves only the poorest of patients, but already there is a two-month waiting list. Dr. Maureen Thielen says the President’s proposed cuts in Medicaid will only make it worse....Agencies that are already doing the work of the poor now find themselves in the unenviable position of proving that their cause is worth it.”
— CBS Evening News, February 7.
Oh, did they tell you that the cuts got reversed? Did he mention that the budget has not passed? Is this news? This in infotainment.
There is another angle here, however, that I get. If the SS and Medicare problems get shoved back and back, then the problem would put us into government health care by default. We’re covered WOMB TO THE TOMB!
We are smarter than that. Stop wearing your Elvis haircut and your hip-hugging jeans, bro. Leave the '50s. It’s the 21st century.
Last edited: Friday, March 25, 2005 at 1:17:45 PM
Here are several good reasons to discuss SS:
1. If we don't start planning to fix SS now, it will be unfixable when the time comes. Unless, of course, you like last-minute cramming -- like that term paper in college that you hadn't started writing that was due the next day, for instance. The financial burden will be beyond taxation.
2. If we don't start discussing the fixes now, we aren't going to have time to fix it, either.
3. If it is scheduled to go red in 2017, then why not begin fixing it now so that it will go red possibly in 2075?
4. There is a population bubble that is currently passing down the colon of life and since the US population is actually decreasing, there will be no escaping the SS/Medicare crisis/tsunami.
5. If we discuss SS now, we can discuss Medicare/Medicaid too!
@JJ
Despite great trepidation over being accused of employing a rotating question approach to arguing with you, the value of my time investment forces me to ask:
Which one of those reasons, in your opinion, provides the most compelling rationalle for the administration's current level of attention? And, do any suggest that privatization might be a good solution?
I just want to make sure I don't give too little attention to lampooning the best of your feeble points.
P.S. No Elvis haircut here -- always hated that idiot. Beatles shag and 60s mindset for this head.
Last edited: Saturday, March 26, 2005 at 5:28:45 AM
Privatized health care? Interesting concept. How would you prevent the poor/needy from being relegated to second rate care? How would you promote prevention, when it would sacrifice long-term profits?
You may be on to something there Flea...run with it. I want to hear more.
Last edited: Sunday, March 27, 2005 at 10:15:27 AM
*cough* JJ *cough*
Hold fire...
Last edited: Thursday, March 31, 2005 at 9:42:39 AM
From today's "NBC Morning Show":
Show Host: “Will new Bush administration budget cuts mean more deaths at the beach this summer? Joining us to discuss beach safety, a real expert, former Baywatch star, David Hasselhoff. Thanks for joining us. David, is it safe to go back in the water?”
David Hasselhoff: “Glad to be here. I’m really only an actor. But, I guess if you, uh, know how to swim that helps.”
Show Host:
“Interesting! How concerned should parents be about putting their children back in the water now that the Bush administration has slashed CPR funding?”
Last edited: Friday, April 01, 2005 at 4:05:00 PM
April Fools?
Last edited: Saturday, April 02, 2005 at 3:27:40 PM
Yawn...back.
No doubt, the media is playing a role in the current lack of debate about SS and Medicare reform.
Consider this quote on a recent talk show from actor Alec Baldwin:
The leadership of the Republican Party are a bunch of sociopathic maniacs who have their lips super-glued to the ass of the conservative right.
Ecce Homo! The Nietzschian hammer at work. Typical "conventional wisdom" that is lip-synched without a brain cell in gear and in Prime Time!
Wha? The media is not biased in your opinion? How about this honest, table-thumping admittance from the best media outlet in the country:
“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
There are, in fact, many good ideas coming out about SS reform. PRA's and RSA's and Add-On Accounts.
Bush's ideas are working. People are beginning to discuss the issue. You just don't hear it in the news. But it's just too big to sweep under the liberal rug.
The media is turning the volume of the debate down. But you expect some duplicity from media, right? After all, they give you the Pope's funeral on screen with a scrolling message about Micheal Jackson's sexual probs beneath it.
They brought us the Peterson murder in the middle of the Iraq war coverage. And they have no idea where the Sudan is...
For sure, you must have your "reverse filters" up these days if you watch the news. In other words, you know they are going to "filter" the news, so you just "un-filter" it. You watch Fox...
So, I ask: to make SS and Medicare reform a national debate, what do you suggest?
Keep in mind, if you think silencing debate is the right answer, you may be prejudiced, bias, manipulative, and not able to add numbers...
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 7:36:52 AM
A million in a money order on the way!
Uh oh, DNC is in Parkersburg...
"silencing debate" is a liberal tendency? An editor for New york time's "admits" that they're left leaning and this explains why the media broadcast to the lowest common denominator? Hollywood liberals are the best exemplar of left ideology?
I don't know why you insist on being so wrong so often...but it sounds like you just cut and pasted that from some conservative blog. News flash: conservatives are generally not all that "nuanced" of thinkers. Most of their drivel condences down to a couple elements. Those bones are sticking out from that cut and paste job.
The numbers are out on SS. No one wants anything to do with it. They realize bush's proposals are ponzi schemes. The man has no credibility on domestic issues. Why are the media parading their usual crap? Media is big business. They're giving you what they think you want. just like mcdonald does. No one ever accused macdonald's of being liberal. here's the deal, when you talk to children, you dumb down the message. It turns out that americans would rather be entertained than informed, or "outraged" rather than concerned. Hence the final product. This effectively silences debate on real crises...you know, like global warming, plundering the third world, consolidation of wealth, shrinking middle class, the failure of neo-con policies, the rise of the east and the decline of the US. Oh, should I add SS privatization to this list? I think not. Just a pet project for market enthusiasts...silence protects status quo. Do you not get it? Who is concerned with protecting status quo? Eh? Liberals?
And you still think this is the only crisis worth discussing...the national debt is a joke to you? The fact that we're on the brink of a real estate bubble burst not bothering you? That real wages are barely keeping up with inflation? That we're facing more domestic spending cuts? None of these are issues to you?
That's right...the right hasn't made any of these things talking points, and probably never will. After all, what benefit falls to the market in addressing global warming? Better to continue erecting straw men ala alec baldwin and happily ensconce yourselves in talking points and alternate realities.
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 5:17:31 PM
How's that for hammer? You bring the republican talking points, I'll hit them with a hammer. And another thing: no one likes your president...he's got the lowest ratings ever of any second term president. Media conspiracy?
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59%.
Bush, 2005: 45%.
Nixon!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 5:27:11 PM
I'm taking 15 minutes to scan the "liberal" media to give you some real crises.
1) FBI seeks expanded search powers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7388717/
2) UN warns of chaotic upheavals in Arab world
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13140
3) Bush Threw Us a 'Curveball'
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer5apr05,0,2096401.column?coll=la-home-utilities
4) The state of the world? It is on the brink of disaster
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=624667
5) Textile industry seeking job protection
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1112574761183380.xml&storylist=washington
6)Day trading in real estate suggests bubble
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050325-084904-2637r.htm
There...that took like, 7 minutes. Pick a crisis.
The leadership of the Republican Party are a bunch of sociopathic maniacs who have their lips super-glued to the ass of the conservative right.
Alec baldwin, liberal hollywood Sodom and Gomorrah type.
By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
...in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
Former Republican Senator, The Reverend John Danforth, Mississipi -- salt of the earth type.
Which one is the bull goose looney? Both say the same thing. Perhaps your disparagement of the sodomite baldwin reflects your own disconnect to the principals of america and democracy. Maybe you fundamentalists --and JJ, you definitely are a fundy, lets not make too much of your apparently well-rounded education -- need to seek a theocracy elsewhere...
There is still a moderate republican voice out there, quietly trying to make sense of all you zealots...
http://moderaterepublican.blogspot.com/
an interesting read
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 9:07:54 PM
"Moderate Republicans believe in community, compassion, pragmatism, common sense, political-fellowship, and, most importantly -- intellectual honesty. This passion is pursued within the broad framework of enlightened Lincolnian principles. Moderate Republicans stand in a crowded room, with the burning spirit of Lincoln in their hearts -- truth, fairness, justice, and limited-compassionate government -- when all others sit during difficult times. Moderates are loyal to serving the greater good -- not an entrenched party leadership. Government, whether limited or expansive, must serve everyone."
Truly an endagered species...
When's the last time anyone saw one of these guys? I miss them. Miss them so much, I started reading their blogs...
http://moderaterepublican.net/
Back up a bit:
@ 44
The notion of the administration’s current level of attention is just hype.
PRA's just draw the big attention. That a discussion on SS reform begin to move ahead is equally important. Many think so. If there is anything that would budge the interest in SS reform, it would be self-interest with the PRA. Nothing wrong with self-determination. Card well played by Mr. Bush.
Suspect the bait-and-switch and big Wall Street manipulation? Right out in plain view? I don't think so.
If you want to look at this with conspiracy in mind, the current Democrat foot dragging could qualify, provided you want to think this way. Big SS wreck, higher tax and more government.
Mr. Nietzche would say, it's time to deconstruct.
@ Flea
The benefits counted on in later life and reneging businesses?
It's not always greedy CEO's ripping away health coverage. Sometimes it's small and medium business people who can't afford the policies and stay in business at the same time. And, if you work for yourself, there is no dental insurance, no medical insurance, and no 401K unless you shop for it yourself.
Part of reason for the high medical costs is the notion that the government will always be the safety net. This was a warning that came with Medicare when it first started. It might get so big that no safety net could stop its fall. It will take two decades to fix it at the current rate if we start now, I predict.
And BTW, the federal budget is the Congress's. The President passes his budget to them and they finish it. Soon, they'll be back in session working on it.
@ Stink
My guess is that the dragon lives, the child trains the lion and he likes the dragon. The child will own a PRA in the future. ;)
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 9:33:21 PM
Wassat about "the lion the witch and the wardrobe?"
Or more along these lines...
Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth.Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth...
I rate sinning against man and knowledge up there with sinning against the earth. Add those sins to the religious rights lists of unholy crimes...nothing worse than a religion of misanthropy unless its a government controlled by one.
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 10:05:32 PM
@ Stink
"Alec baldwin, liberal hollywood Sodom and Gomorrah type"
Where did that come from? They aren't my words, so they must be your additions.
Ad hominen, as I reread a little Nietzche, was one of his favorite weapons.
Typical:
"...we should be suspicious of Socrates' teaching because he was ugly!"
A lot more too.
The dragon, lion, and child were N's three levels of development.
Last edited: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 9:53:00 PM
I took poetic license. My muse was the religious rights slander that one of the pillars of modern liberalism is hollywood, with its anything goes morality and graphic excesses. Want to heap scorn on the liberals? Choose a hollywood liberal (sodomite) to scape goat...
Are you reading nietzsche, or what others had to say about him? He was as nuanced a writer as is humanly possible, and he loved to tease and provoke. I find his archetyping a bit past gay and simplistic. Try beyond good and evil or geneology of morals rather than thus spoke...
He loved socrates for his mind, but hated him for giving birth to the dialectic method, and its triumph over more "manly" virtues...like the pure beauty of brute natural strength...the irony of course is that N was a master of linguistics -- he stayed away from dialectics actually -- and a physical weakling...
Ps...you'll probably burn in hell for reading him
Last edited: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 at 3:42:29 AM
They're giving you what they think you want. Just like mcdonald does. No one ever accused macdonald's of being liberal. Here's the deal, when you talk to children, you dumb down the message. It turns out that americans would rather be entertained than informed, or "outraged" rather than concerned. Hence the final product. This effectively silences debate on real crises...you know, like global warming, plundering the third world, consolidation of wealth, shrinking middle class, the failure of neo-con policies, the rise of the east and the decline of the US. Oh, should I add SS privatization to this list?
SS privatization certainly should be added to the list.
The thought is still how the media ought to report .
Does talking to the public like we are children effectively silence debate on real crises, as you say?
Yes, couldn't have said it better myself.
So you get Peter Jennings saying: "We're going to begin [the news half-hour] with the extraordinary last-minute attempt by members of Congress to interfere -- or to intervene -- in the case of Terry Schiavo, the young woman who has been in a vegetative state for seven years..."
If I were paying for that as news, I'd demand a refund. "To interfere (wait, check that) to intervene." Interesting double-clutch.
No one asks for news filters, they ask for reporting. To assume that the general American public is too stupid for simple news reporting is wrong.
If you assume in advance that only the elite can really comprehend the news, you are biased.
Last edited: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 at 9:58:38 AM
Of course I'm biased.
But I stand by the statement..."It turns out that americans would rather be entertained than informed, or "outraged" rather than concerned" at least that's what the demographic research indicates...
Its the reason that fox has been so sucessful, and why other "news" programs model themselves after fox.
Your thought is about manner of reportage...mine is to deal a blow to the notion of "liberal" press, and then to get to the mystery behind the manner...bear with me. In reality, there is nothing liberal about the press. Hence my analogy of mcdonalds. The news media think they are just selling us a commodity, like any other business. They've shaped the product and how its packaged based on demographic research, just like mcdonalds does...probably used the same agencies. They try to find out what it is we want, and then give us a product in that image...
Media is big business. Like any big business, they must be business savy and that need supercedes their duty to inform.
When peter double clutches and lets slip a linguistic riddle...it gives one pause. Hints at a personality. But the man is a small cog in a big wheel...abc is owned by disney...the people who tried to stop michael moore's 9/11 before it even got started.
lets say peter is a raging liberal...it is possible, he is canadian after all. And we all know that its not a far stretch from canadianism to lesbianism...at least among women. I mean, its really hard to tell -- both have a penchant for flannel shirts...nonetheless, peter's socialist dreams won't find ample purchase at abc...
Disney is also a lobbying giant, having spent nearly $4 million to lobby the federal government last year. Chief among its concerns is preventing the unauthorized copying and distribution of movies and music, but Disney’s legislative interests are as broad as its business holdings. In addition to its stake in the movie and theme park business, Disney owns the television network ABC, dozens of local television and radio stations and two major sports franchises, pro hockey’s Anaheim Mighty Ducks and Major League Baseball’s Anaheim Angels.
And nbc is owned by GE...one of the world's largest defense contractors. Not exactly a bastion for liberalism...
If you want fair coverage...you missed your opportunity to fight for it.
The proposals for change are endorsed by Michael Powell (son of Colin), who is one of three Republicans appointed to the FCC. Mr Powell originally wanted to eliminate the 35 per cent cap on television ownership altogether, but was forced to compromise, reflecting pressure from network-affiliated private stations that fear they would be further weakened in dealings with their networks.
Two of the five members of the FCC, Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, are Democrats, and they voted against the changes, having earlier sought to postpone the vote to allow more public consultation. An array of local and national interest groups have sought to persuade Congress that the new regulations will lead to further consolidation, and less real choice on mainstream television.
Are they right? What about Rupert Murdoch?
The US market is already dominated by five major broadcasters - Fox, AOL Time Warner, Walt Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC) and Viacom (CBS and UPN). Analysts point out that all except Viacom currently have high levels of debt, which will restrict expansion plans.
Rupert Murdoch elicited laughter from senators on Capitol Hill in May when he said he had no plans for a buying spree in the US once rules on media ownership were relaxed. But in the near term, the owner of Fox has his hands full with the acquisition of DirecTV, the largest satellite television company in the US. However, under the changed regulations it is true that Mr Murdoch could eventually beef up his holdings, and could in theory acquire a medium-sized newspaper chain, such as Gannett.
In the meantime, if the reforms go through despite the opposition in Congress, smaller US networks may merge, while major newspaper groups, such as the New York Times and the Tribune Group may buy television stations in markets which they are currently excluded from.
So now media corps can get even bigger...and their ability to supress and silence has been blessed and codified by congress. Who fought this deregulation scheme? It wasn't the religious right.
What's the solution? Obviously, it's independent news outlets...but these are fewer and harder to find. And btw, the republican controlled congress severely curtailed support to PBS, doing their best to silence and suppress alternative media...
listen, this isn't a-partisan issue. Its an issue progressives from all affiliations should be deeply concerned about. Its just that finding progressives on the right is like finding a needle in the haystack these days...
Last edited: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 at 7:38:22 PM
<-------(Logs in, prints this thread. Printer runs out of paper. Re-loads printer. Heads to the house to read this whilst taking a dump. Will probably use Stink's posts for "striking paper)
Chief...strike this :)
JJ: you see? You bitch and moan about how the media sucks, but you don't really even understand your own complicity in the suckage...
The media suck because they are a big business megalopoly...they're getting bigger and bigger because of free market forces and deregulation.
In general, the party that brings you monopolization and deregulation are....
DUH.
The republicans...your heroes.
So...tired of the suck? Tired of being wrong on nearly every stance you take? Tired of subverted your obvious intellect to pre-packaged ideas that don't really suit you?
You...are a progressive waiting for a place to happen. So is chief. Open your heart just a tad...there is in fact a long distinquished history of progressive republicanism in this country. Google that. Get the family together and make the announcement...
And then de-program rabban.
What...huh...wazzat? Someone say something to me?
Last edited: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 9:58:34 AM
The media suck because they are a big business megalopoly...they're getting bigger and bigger because of free market forces and deregulation.
You realize that monopolies are created by government grant, aye stink? Please don't blame the "free market" for the failings of regulation. Soon there will be true content-on-demand available and the FCC's distortion of the marketplace will be diminished.
I'm back...
...and JJ is still crazy. Case in point:
The notion of the administration’s current level of attention is just hype.
Really?
Take a look at the following from today's Washington Post:
The Bush administration's ongoing Social Security blitz is unusual in scale in the selling of a domestic policy, mobilizing the president and vice president, four Cabinet secretaries and 17 lesser officials, down to an associate director of strategic planning for the White House budget office. It also may be one of the most costly in memory, well into the millions of dollars...
Should you choose to read on...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7412600/
Last edited: Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 4:50:59 AM
BC: what do you mean government grant? That the government actively creates monopolies? Or that by remaining passive or deregulating them, allow them to become monopoly?
Free market advocates such as libertarians, assert that a natural monopoly is a practical impossibility, because forces of supply and demand are in constant flux. In reality, intense competition between corporations within the same industry leads to the eventual elimination of all but one or a few corporations. There are numerous examples of monopolies in our time. Your theory is that consumer need will drive the market and open new niches. Why has this not happened in the news industry yet? It hasn't...not to any practical extent. In rare cases where niches open up, they are frequently absorbed into the behemoth corporations through purchase or take over.
As the world prepares to deal with the twenty-first century, United States society as a whole and the country's mass media find themselves in the same conflict-between what is good for business and what is good for the quality of life in society.
A robust economy and social equity have always been intertwined, and government played an intricate role in the relationship. But in the United States during the decades leading to the millennium, both national politics and most of the country's commercial media have created the notion that social and economic well-being are in a state of conflict.
America's major media are crucial parties to the creation of this artificial conflict. The media do not speak in total unison. Some occasionally present arguments and proposals for a more balanced view. But all are wedded to the ultimate need to satisfy the major source of their income, corporate advertising.
Consequently, corporate decision making is the most powerful single force in socializing and politicizing the American public. Leading corporations own the leading news media and their advertisers subsidize most of the rest. They decide what news and entertainment will be made available to the country; they have direct influence on the country's laws by making the majority of the massive campaign contributions that go to favored politicians; their lobbyists are permanent fixtures in legislatures.
This inevitably raises suspicions of overt conspiracy. But there is none. Instead, there is something more insidious: a system of shared values within contemporary American corporate culture and corporations' power to extend that culture to the American people, inappropriate as it may be.
ben bagdikian, The Media Monopoly
Ben is an award winning, nationally recognized professor of Journalism...his analysis of the media should trump o'reilly's.
Never ever say liberal media again.
Got intellectual honesty?
(not you BC, I know you do....)
Pssst....i'm out for a couple weeks...don't take my silence as another one of my hissy fits.
Its just that I've got better things to do for the next two weeks...
I'll return and show you the errors of your ways in about 14 days...
That burns.
In the middle of tax season, someone on this planet gets two weeks...
Last edited: Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 4:32:35 PM
^ Do we have another "Code Head" among us? Where's that K-1...
I could use some help with my taxes. Writing off bribes can be tricky. I smell an audit.
I'll leave you with this:
Thirty years ago, President Bush was my student at Harvard Business School. In my class, he called former president Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904, a “socialist” and spoke against Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other New Deal innovations. He refused to understand that capitalism becomes corrupt without democratic civic values and ethical restraints.
In those days, Bush belonged to a minority of MBA students who were seriously disconnected from taking the moral and social responsibility for their actions. Today, he would fit in comfortably with an overwhelming majority of business students and teachers whose role models are celebrated captains of piracy. Since the 1980s, as neo-conservatives have captured the Republican Party, America’s business education has also increasingly become contaminated by the robber baron culture of the pre-Great Depression era.
Bush is the first president of the United States with a Master’s of Business Administration (MBA). Yet, he epitomizes the worst aspects of America’s business education. To privatize Social Security, he is peddling a colossal lie about its solvency. Furthermore, Bush, along with today’s business aristocrats, shows no compassion for working Americans, robbing them to benefit big business and the very rich. Last year, due to Bush’s tax cuts, over 80 of America’s most profitable 200 corporations did not pay even a penny of their federal and state income taxes. Meanwhile, to pay for his additional tax cuts for the very rich, Bush is drastically cutting back several social services, such as federal lunch programs for poor children.
Business education has also produced former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling and other MBAs behind the malfeasances of Tyco, HealthSouth, Haliburton, AIG, and WorldCom. Many executives of corporate America who hold MBAs have also been engaged in the unethical acts of raiding their corporate treasuries at the expense of employees and stockholders. Emulating President Bush’s hubris, a multitude of CEOs in corporate America give themselves obscenely large bonuses that have little to do with their performance. In 1980, the CEOs of Fortune 500 large corporations received, on average, 70 times larger annual compensations than their average employees. Under the Bush Administration, comparable CEOs have come to give themselves 600 to 1,000 times larger annual compensations than their rank-and-file employees whose pay has stagnated. To pay for such self-dealt compensations, corporate aristocrats layoff their workers, cut ordinary employees’ health benefits, and outsource jobs abroad. Under the Bush Administration, over five million Americans have lost their health benefits, and the U.S. Has lost over 2.7 million quality manufacturing jobs. President Bush and his rapacious “captains of piracy” of corporate America are destroying America’s democracy built up since Roosevelt’s New Deal era.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506836
What if america's collapse wasn't because of a loss of values in the common sense of the term? But from the financial insercurity and outright poverty destroying families, neighborhoods, towns, cities, states...caused by corporate avarice, selfishness and outright piracy? Rupert murdoch avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars by offshoring his corporations this year...that money would have bought a lot of text books...or for that matter, bombs.
And how are you benefitting from this arrangement? Feeling secure?
Take care.
Last edited: Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 8:40:05 PM
That is the same article that was in Salon that you quoted a while back. Whoever taught the class still doesn't seem to be faculty at Haaar-vard.
@ KBC
G1! Short LOL!
Now I know who swiped my pre-completed tax forms!!!
If taxes weren't such a killer, I'd laugh longer.
Last edited: Friday, April 08, 2005 at 7:29:15 AM
@ 44
With Stinker visiting hobbits, I guess I'll have to teach you to shuck corn as per Nietzche.
Ready, genius?
Hehe
Am I ready? This genius is still waiting for an answer from you going back 20 - 30 posts. Bring it -- I'll kick your ass and that Neechy guy too. :)
Heh Flea, I'm canadian and it doesn't make sense. Could you rephrase it in a clearer way? :o
Hmm I don't think it's any clearer but I get the drift. Seems to me it's rhetoric. Like we all know stats can mean just about anything depending how you want to use it. I've also heard your president suffers a bit from dislexia and that may explain his difficulty at explaining economic policies and abstract ideas in general. :o
Dys·lex·I·a Pronunciation Key (ds-lks-)
n. A learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words
Remember reading something about that. Apparently several 'great' people had dyslexia (Einstein, etc.).
Flea, you speak weird. Perhaps the Flea Killing Powder I used in PSL is getting to your brain? :)
Err, erm, ahh, hmmm...
Well, anyway, I got to talk to 44 about how to rant like "Nee-chee" (Nietzsche) and Stinker. All others are welcome, too (as we shall see...).
First, let me say that I am proud of Stinker. He does a pretty darn good job of imitating Mr. Nee-chee. It's not my style but, heh, I have to recognize intelligence wherever it wanders.
What does Nee-chee use to argue? Ad Hominem and Appeal to Emotion . Two fallacies. "Ad Hominem" means "go to the man." Stinker says "Ecce Homo" a lot, and it means "Behold the man!" About the same.
The point is to skip the argument and attack the character or credibility of the person presenting the argument.
Why he does this, I really am not sure... Flea powder on the brain, maybe?
However, these are good forms of attack if the arguments are pretentious, self-inflated, or false. However again, if the arguments are not pretentious, self-inflated, or false, they are mere cheap shots.
Nee-chee was a master of language and to his credit -- and Stinker's -- he usually knew when to stop a personal attack. Usually. Most of the time, he attacks only the motive and not the person.
A key, vital part of this style is to recognize that you are not just "kicking ass" -- which is a negative -- but you are attempting to LIBERATE! -- which is a positive thing. This is psychological guerrilla warfare, of a type. In the book Ecce Homo , Nee-chee said he was not just a critic of tradition, he was "dynamite."
Last edited: Monday, April 11, 2005 at 3:45:56 PM
OK, so here's a sample :)
Henry Waxman! In that Slate article that you quote, 44. Great source... Not. The man has a history of big spending problems and he is preaching penny-pinching to the President?
And any so-called news source (tabloid) that would seriously quote this clown are a bunch of clowns. Heh, clowns with a propaganda agenda.
And if you read that kind of tabloid with any seriousness, you are just one of the herd. Ecce homo, cowboy! Mooooo.
Actually, you should be afraid that you don't recognize manipulation when you see it! By both Waxman and Slate . Such pristine examples of fair mindedness and wholesome thinking.
IF YOU DON'T STOP, you will soon be enslaved to the tax-and-spend policies that are so deeply ingrained in the operations of the government. The conservatives are simply trying to set you free to a better day where individuals can make their own choices, free from the chains of limousine liberals and the SUV environmentalists. Stop and listen before it's too late.
Hehe... Count there three Ad Hominems, one "Be Afraid," and one "LIBERATION!"
Last edited: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 9:48:16 AM
OK, briefly, what Stinker says about bias and big corporations is just Begging the Question.
Back to that later.
44, Mr. $$ (did you know the dollar sign is above your name?...haw), explain to me where the reserves are in the Social Security system.
Wait, that's too easy. They're in bonds. Right?
Yes, the trust fund is mostly held in special issue bonds...sold only to the treasury...and are mainly of two types: short-term certificates of indebtedness and long-term bonds. There is also a small percentage of marketable bonds (the type you and I can buy).
Now, do you remember these questions:
Is social security a crisis? Does it warrant this level of attention and political capital ahead of issues such as medicaid, deficit, education, etc.? Will privatization secure it's future? What is this administration's motivation for pursuing privatization?
You responded:
1. If we don't start planning to fix SS now, it will be unfixable when the time comes. Unless, of course, you like last-minute cramming -- like that term paper in college that you hadn't started writing that was due the next day, for instance. The financial burden will be beyond taxation.
2. If we don't start discussing the fixes now, we aren't going to have time to fix it, either.
3. If it is scheduled to go red in 2017, then why not begin fixing it now so that it will go red possibly in 2075?
4. There is a population bubble that is currently passing down the colon of life and since the US population is actually decreasing, there will be no escaping the SS/Medicare crisis/tsunami.
5. If we discuss SS now, we can discuss Medicare/Medicaid too!
Are you still comfortable with those answers? Is there one, amongst the lot, that you feel is strongest?
Hehe, is this like choosing the brand of my last smoke before I face the firing squad?
...then, I chooose, #5!
#5: If we discuss SS now, then we can discuss Medicare too?!
Overspending.
You are right that those SS bonds were sold to the Treasury. (The Treasury = The place you write a check to this Thursday, if you owe.)
The Treasury is a little short right now. When the bonds are needed to pay SS recipients in 2015, the funds are coming from...? Ding, ding, ding! There is no money!
(For those who don't like nuance: We lent to ourselves and turned around and spent it all.)
Bad, bad.
The bank is broke.
Fix it now or pay bad later.
This is why the coming sessions of Congress will be so interesting. If they don't do smart spending soon, it's deep, deep.
We could eliminate military spending altogether and start sending potted geraniums to rogue nations with a note that reads: "Do you have WMD? If yes, please destroy now. If not, please check the appropriate box on the enclosed form and use the SASE to return to it to us immediately. Thank you for your cooperation! This information will actually help us to keep large numbers of our constituency satisfied, since they think WMD are the only bad things to worry about. And have a nuclear-free day!"
;)
Last edited: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 8:55:16 AM
A Disclaimer:
This is a a disclaimer that I do not like nor watch Fox News. Not even for balance.
I don't care for the "tabliod-esque" cheesy helicopter high-speed car chase coverage on most things.
Not liberal bias or conservative bias. Bias.
But, oooops:
Don Imus: “What’s going on throughout the Middle East, these various demonstrations of a thirst for democracy?”
Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas:
“I just love this story because it makes the press look so bad. I mean, I hope it all works out and we do get peace and freedom in the Middle East, but my short-term, narrow entertainment here is that, you know, all the chattering classes, all my friends, including me, were all saying, oh, you know, ‘Iraq was a terrible thing and Bush has screwed up the Middle East and we’re just creating terrorists and nothing’s going to work here and it’s the end of the world,’ and then the next thing you know, peace and freedom and democracy are breaking out, and they can’t explain it.”
Last edited: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 8:49:40 AM
OK, this is coming from left field, but since this is the only political thread at the moment and I mentioned privitization of public service (i.e. Welfare and SSI), I just wanted to throw this into the mix.
Way back, stink made a comment that seemed to imply that private giving was dominated by Christians giving to their pastors. While I know congregations do give to support their pastors, its not a bad thing. Not that being a pastor is a good, secure job to get rich by. I personally know three pastors who also work(ed) other jobs to make ends meet. One is a farmer, one a milkman and another is a Physician's Assistant. My bro-in-law was just fired from a church for preaching on a topic the deacons didn't like and didn't want to change. He's gone once school is out for his kids. He gets a $10K severance and the demonination wants him to find another church, but that's still uprooting the family. His retirement is with the demonination, but he recently decided to start paying into SSI, just in case.
The other reason I like private charities handling giving to their local needy is because they can really judge who needs help and who doesn't. In West Virginia, it seems that welfare and SSI benefits are the financial goal of many people. Disability, unemployment and worker's comp. Are all gravy trains people hope to catch a ride on. Granted, there are those who need help, but it is frustrating to hear people complain about the quality of their services while receiving more than my family does via my paycheck. For example, someone was complaining the other day about not getting a new pair of glasses every year. That didn't go over well with my wife since she hasn't gotten a new pair herself in...well...several years. I have another friend who developed schizophrenia from his years of smoking weed. So now he's on the teat, getting meds, housing and whatnot. Another friend has agoraphobia, which translates into a check for him. Another friend (who works as a game programmer in CA) also gets SSI because of a knee injury. My mom-in-law is stringing out a wrist injury as long as possible to continue receiving workman's comp. The list goes on and on. To make matters worse, my wife could probably get disability if she tried, but she feels bad about doing so since she can work, even though she is in constant pain from scoliosis. So if my money was really going to the "poor and needy", then I guess I could be more supportive of the whole program, but I see too many abuses and feelings of "entitlement" that take away that good feeling a giving.
@ Flea
From the OMB:
The Federal budget meaning of the term “trust” differs significantly from the private sector usage...
Treasury Bonds are good. The SS bonds are ^.
I agree. Bush's trump card would be to warn us that the reserves are spent. Maybe we can ABC, CBS, or CNN to point that out, eh? How about MoveOn.org? I figure that we actually have one or two more Presidential cycles (all of which will be conservative) before taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for the "SS reserves."
@ 44
Dude, you must not talk issues. Did I waste all that breath?
You must ignore the issues! Go straight for the person who makes the argument!
Another example for you:
Come on, JJ. Bush, being the author of the biggest budget of all time, is just a moron for talking about efficient spending in Social Security. Don't you see that JJ? This is just a Karl Rove-ian twist to bilk millions out of the lower middle classes. Greedy investment bankers can't wait to get their hands into the pockets of future retirees. Then when retirement age comes, they will all be incredibly broke. Then those master evil Republicans may re-institute debtor's prisons so that they will have cheap labor for their tennis shoe factories. Except by that time, there won't even be enough people who can afford tennis shoes... (Ecce Homo).
@ Rabban
And yet a lot of these people aren't thieves. I spent some time in the Kentucky mountains. I will never forget the Appalachian man who looked at me and said, "It was you people that taught us to hold our hands out for the dole."
This is a touchy, tender subject. Money and self-confidence do bad things when confused. Which makes the "Great Society" of long ago odious.
But don't just describe it. Give us a practical, competent solution...private charities do what???
Last edited: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 2:45:23 PM
@JJ - Thought I made that point. Let's say I give all my FICA to my church. They can help people in my local community who they deem really need it. Those who are trying to use the system will have a harder time doing so since the people who are helping them live in their communities instead of off in DC. For example, a pastor friend used to give people money when they came by the church asking for help to feed their family. He later changed that policy to taking them to the grocery store and paying for what they needed. Sometimes folks did just that while others didn't stick around to go shopping. There's a local outlet for donated building materials in our area. Windows sell for $35 tops (unless its a bay window, which usually go for $200-$400) and everything is really cheap. The trick is its all donated, so you never know what's going to be in stock. We've used a lot of stuff in our home. We had to pay $20 to join, volunteer some time and get our pastor to vouch for our need. We've hired some of the work done, done some ourselves and had groups from our church help as well. Our house is in better shape. Several local churches support individual soup kitchens and free pantries. Goodwill has a local store. In the meantime, folks who are helped can be asked to volunteer some of their time to help others as well.
I guess another thing that drives my philosophy is that I don't think anyone on public assistance should do better than someone on minimum wage. If minimum wage pays $825/mo, then public assistance should only pay $775 or so. And I don't think they should receive more benefits when they have more children. If we would have another child, am I going to get a raise at work? Nope. I've got to make due. It just bothers me that the Feds are taking my money to give services to others that I can't afford for myself. My son doesn't have health care. I'm going to have to pay for child care this summer while others get it free from the DHHR (so I'm paying for my kid and theirs). My schizo friend should only get his meds from the feds since he's able to work when he's on them. Thing is, he doesn't have a need to work since everything is provided to him.
Look, I'm all for giving and helping people out that need it. Its just frustrating to be aware of the abuses that go on while I go without. I'd rather be in charge of my own money, prepare for my own retirement and give the govt money for things I can't do (like pave roads and defend the nation). Charity and welfare ARE federal moral programs and if we don't want government in the morality business, then we should do so across the board.
Go Biscuit! DeFazio lives several blocks down the road?
"Worthless IOUs"?
Slice any way you wish, there is no money in the till. Plus, others than Bush have stated that SS is going to bust. It's more taxes, reduced spending, or streamlining.
BTW, Happy April 15th...Happy Tax Day to everyone.
The post office will be open until 11:59 to receive your offering, Rabban.
The question that rises up from your post is what legitimacy does government really have.
Siphoning off FICA is a good sentiment. However, some of the poor would certainly suffer since church groups are notorious for bickering. Ever go to a Catholic wedding while not being Catholic?
@ Chief
You started this, you better not chicken out!!!
Last edited: Friday, April 15, 2005 at 8:06:30 PM
Slice any way you wish, there is no money in the till. Plus, others than Bush have stated that SS is going to bust.
Is there a term for this type of fallacy...where one skips the argument altogether, ignores the substance of good points and simply stubbornly repeats the same falsehood and then looks to support it by saying 'others agree'. Ad Ignorus, perhaps? Ad Disregardus, maybe? Did that Neechy guy use this type of bullshit reasoning too, or was he a little more skilled in his debate?
Let me see if I can provide you a sample:
Me: The evidence that Iraq has wapons of mass destruction seems tenuous, at best, and not nearly strong enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. We have no direct proof of WMDs in Iraq, there is reason to be suspect about the intelligence, and there are other countries which are much more clearly in possession and threatening.
You: Slice it any way you wish, there are WMDs in Iraq. Plus, others than Bush have stated that Iraq is in cahoots with al Qaeda and will give them a nuclear weapon to use against us.
First this administration said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a “mushroom cloud” was imminent. Now, we're being sold something equally outrageous; a phony Social Security “crisis.” This administration claims Social Security will be “flat broke” and “bust” by the time today’s workers retire. We keep hearing that Social Security is going “bankrupt”, that there "is no money in the till." Nothing could be further from the truth.
The facts are that Social Security can meet 100% of its obligations for the next 36 years with no changes to the current system. Further, after 2041, the system reports it can pay more than 70% of benefits even if we do absolutely nothing. Social Security isn’t “broke,” “bankrupt” or in “crisis.” There is no "empty till." And the sooner everyone – especially seemingly intelligent folk (ecce homo!) – begins to look at this administration’s claims with a more skeptical eye, the better.
Should we do something? Sure. Need we do it today, and prioritize it ahead of deficit reduction, healthcare, education, etc.? I don't think so. If we choose to do something today, is privatization a good strategy? NOOOO!
"Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok! This is what He does..."
Last edited: Saturday, April 16, 2005 at 4:13:33 AM
Page : 1 : 2 : <3> : 4 : 5 . . . . . 24
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?