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:

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?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is an increasing part of your budget is going to weaponry and the army to 'liberate' countries that never asked for it. Like, weaponry is some of the most expensive stuff around. The mark-up is huge. I've always said I should deal in rockets and not in jewelry :( Staggering sums are paid to 'rebuild' (?) Afganistan and Iraq (incidentally it's rebuilding from the 'Shock and Awe' bombing destruction). I mean, I'm sure they can cut some $ from your army to address SS issues.

In Canada our military spending per capita is just above Luxembourg's (I'm talking NATO here). We're #14 out of 15. Wooot! Something to be proud of. ;) Of course we're ridiculed and our 'projection of power' in the world is weak. But the governing parties know there's no vote to be won from spending the bucks on the Army. However I think there's a good proportion of the US vote linked to military spending, for your country spends tons of $ in all directions (Military R&D, contracting and subcontracting, Universities, private firms, etc.), not just the soldier itself.

Anyway our country's big debate always revolves around SS. Sometimes Canada is described as a Socialist country. However here this is how you stay 'in power' or not... It's all about priorities, I really wonder what's the point of having all those bases all around the world. Showing up? Curious thinking. Dangerous overstretching.

'Empire Lite', anyone? Good luck with your issues... :o

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Mainstream Media: "The new Pope is dividing the Catholic Church!"

Very recent poll results:

Approve of new Pope, Bendict XVI: 83%
Disapprove: 13%

And...

Howard Dean, new DNC Chairman:

"Democrats are on the side of good, Republicans evil."

John Harwood of Wall Street Journal: "I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil."

Hmmm....

Last edited: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 8:22:28 AM

@ 44

Ahhhh, the numbers.

I want you to obligate yourself to pay increased taxes to pay for bonds that will soon be coming due.

JJ opts out of new taxes to foot the bill. 44 proudly meets the demand.

I suppose I could use a comparison.

A family member got the credit card and spent and spent and spent. And since there was not enough to pay the credit card bill when it arrived, you get to work and work and work to pay it...but whatever.

Behind all this nefarious conservative evil is the principle of ownership society, individual rights, and not being a supplicant of the state.

@ Hugo

Eh, what do they call Social Security in Canada? The National Paycheck? Do Canadians all line up at the local government office when the eagle flies? Priorities? Which priorities. Prior priorities...current priorities...laggy priorities...century-old priorities...priorities based on welfare...priorities based on lack of military spending...priorities based on individual welfare...priorities based on self-evident truths: life, liberty, and the pursuit of unhappiness?

Hey, we could use streamline spending in this country. A decade old are the stories of the military buying $400 toilet seats and $100 hammers. Are they still doing it? Probaaaaaaaaaaaably so. Does that provide premise for no military? No...

Last edited: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 8:23:03 AM

Doesn't Hugo know that the Canadian military begins with the designation "US" and sleeps under the blanket we provide? Sure, her soldiers are swell (Hi Rhonda!), but they really don't have to spend the cash since they know we're all continental bed buddies.

I'm also curious about the concept that money spent on war or the military somehow vanishes. Its all part of a money laundry. The money goes to contractors and military types, businesses and individuals. Do you think they sit on it? No. They pay their bills, hire new employees, invest in R&D, mutual funds and pay their taxes. Money spent in Iraq on Iraq is an investment in the nation and the future (oh, and the contractors).

"They pay their bills, hire new employees, invest in R&D, mutual funds and pay their taxes..." and get disgustingly fat , btw. War Cap/Corporatism, anyone?
Anybody wanna buy a hammer?
—————
Speaking of which, bombs and bullets aren't the only way GWB can fill those bellies.

A little texas tea refined on old military bases? Sounds like synergy, and everyone's a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hydrogen cars mon arse, electric cars mon arse.
{ I'm entering a punctuation overdrive phase, bear with me. }
—————
By mentioning R&D, Rabban confuses me as to why defense companies can spend money on future technologies—thus plott......er....preparing for wars to come—while our government cannot. I think I'm developing a complex.
—————
http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

Last edited: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 9:07:59 AM

^ a graph that should raise howls from all sides. Is that per year or a cumulative total?

And I will say that I've been contemplating why we're not trying pushing more to develop alternative fuel sources here in the states. Sure, we got some hybrids coming out and there's always talk of hydrogen autos, but we don't really seem to be demanding it. I personally plan to make the switch asap (i.e. Affordable). I've heard commentaries that a hydrogen switch takes a lot more than just creating the vehicles, since there are alotta logistics involved as well. So I'm all, "OK, so we had better get started". Just because its difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. If memory servers, it seems that it is still cheaper to use gasoline and that's why we're not pushing to make the change, but I think there are a lot more and better reasons (environment & energy independence) to switch sooner than later.

"Damnit! You mean, this is gonna take VISION?"

@ Flea...wow.

And ditto the "puke". XO

Biodiesel!

You could run all the trucks in this country diesel fuel made with oil produced from sunflowers grown on fallow land. And you don't have to change or adjust their engines. Nor would states lose their tax revenue ^

I drive a VW Golf TDI (turbo diesel) and get 52 mpgs on the highway. No lack of power either. It pulls up Pittsburgh's hills like a light tank. And the best part: when you idle it sounds just like TT! And I can put biodiesel in it and I am off the Big Oil grid.

Put an oil man in the White House and fund his campaigns with oil money and you get policies that favor the short term interests of Shell and Exxon, not the long term interests of the people.

Clouds of black smoke too, Pug?

@ Rabban

You are bold with those lighted matches and flammables!

AND so, let's have a moment of silence...

...for Tony Blair.

My hat's off. A British version of the liberal Democrat who is about to be elected again. A majority of his party ticked at him. The conservatives there in total confusion. An old fashioned liberal who liberates and understands money.

Ah, if we had a few like him here. Could Howard Dean be swapped?!

Also, I am enjoying the current filibustering tactics of the Democrats over judge approvals. It's not like these judges aren't ABA checked out before they are brought up. It's law, not politiics.

The Democrats aggravate the culture wars. Law isn't one area to do this in.

Bush may forge words this evening...we shall see.

Maybe Tally could pass off to him the punctuation overdrive so Bush can avoid vocab pratfalls.

@Flea

Chart source?

Last edited: Thursday, April 28, 2005 at 8:28:15 AM

Meanwhile, Medicare is a mess and SS is not far behind and private accounts are the future...

BTW, growing sunflowers for fuel for my automobile sounds like, ah, flower power.

Back to the future.

Also, on the subject of too much gas, what is the deal with mass transit? Where is all the technology? I watched an interesting NGC show on the Autobahn in Germany last evening. But could you imagine the Autobahn in this country? Great Balls of Fiery Crashage! Bahn-bahn-ban-de-Autobahn.

No Autobahn. Also, No to hybrids and Yes to better mass transit.

SUV hybrid? Oh, yeah...oh, no.

Last edited: Thursday, April 28, 2005 at 8:43:44 AM

The TDI only smokes when it's cold, otherwise it's pretty quiet and clean.

Speaking of fillibusters: The Rebulicans were not shy about using it when they were in the minority. The Dems blocked what? 5 out of 200+. The Rebulicans blocked far more. And it is really short-sighted of them. When, not if, the economy ends up like a demo in a scrum and the dollar falls like a heavy off a cliff, (remember the peso? Remember what happened to the Asian currencies?) The Rebulicans won't get elected in a generation; then they are gonna really be sorry they don't have that weapon of the weak.

Filibusteros gets used in many places.

Up or down votes on judges.

@ Flea

We may have found an agreement about where to set money aside. Whoa, look out the window and see if the sky is falling?

Flea mass transit. Doggone good travel plan. Let you in on it down at paw level.

Of course, you got it wrong still about the SS mess. Conservatives are just trying to save SS from failing .

Hey, wasn't GW good last night. Feel the love! XD

Ah, Stink, what blog you highjack that from?

Last edited: Friday, April 29, 2005 at 9:56:16 AM

When SS was first introduced, I understand FDR said it was "private insurance"?!

If I put $4K a year in SS for 30 years but, sadly, I leave this vale of tears at age 60, why can't my relatives get the $120K?

Answer: Because it's not "private insurance."

Typical. The Democratic idea of solving a budget crisis is Policy da Marie Antoinette:

"Let them eat cake!"

Beheading.

I was reading through my e-mail and came across a column on Gdub's rare press conference. You can find the whole column at http://ourfuture.org/onmessage/borosage/20050429_boro_spin.cfm

Here's a part that fits this thread:

I recently saw a poll that showed about 2/3 do not think the Pres. Is on the right track.

JJ: how many guesses do you need? Some demo blog of course! Thus the spin...but the facts? Embedded in there also.

I guess the republican idea of solving the budget crisis is more akin to policy ala jeffery dalmer:

"eat the poor."

I prefer cake.

Listen, bush proves daily he isn't the guy to solve financial crises...he's much better at excacerbating them.

@JJ - maybe I'm a little slow, but your posts are getting quite disjointed and obtuse. Could you please write all the words, including the voices in your head? :)

^ :)

That was funny!

You guys reading about this iraq memo?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm

So...if that's the case, does it change anything?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1474754,00.html

Um...i think we've been..."managed."

Tell me this isn't impeachable.

OK, Rabban, thanks for the request for better and more particular information!

Heeeere goes!

From the last two posts:

"Filibusteros" is a word from 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates who held ships hostage for ransom. Find a reference at c-span.org if you've the time.

"Up or down votes on judges" refers to how past judicial nominations have typically been done without filibusters. Filibustering has and does in fact take place in other legislative procedures but has never been done with judicial nominations to this degree. Until now. It has been a Senate tradition to debate but never jam and stop the process. Remember Clarence Thomas' nomination? It reached a vote even though it was a bitter political fight.

This filibustering is newsworthy because the tradition is being broken for pretty much the first time.

It's no secret why it's being broken: The Democrats don't have enough votes to stop the nominations from passing.

However and most importantly, there is nothing terribly improper about any of the nominees -- despite some of the slanted information that has been presented about them. (Similar to the ones Stinker quotes from his blog source.) These judges are scrutinized by the ABA, the American Bar Association, and others before nomination.

We normally would hear loudly and clearly that a person is an unfit nominee well before the nomination. Senators who did not like a candidate for a definite reason would hold a press conference, most likely, and make it plain that a nominee is completely unfit for his position.

No objections like these have really surfaced. Therefore, the objections to these judges are purely politically motivated.

The obvious wrong here is that law is being shaped by politics.

Now, I am not naive enough to think that politics don't ever shape laws.

However, it is a tradition in this country that law, and the practice of law, rises and stays above politics -- even if it is ever so slightly.

The difficulty is that in the future, judges may have to be considered for their political worth as well as their ability to perform well at law and legal thinking. Thanks to the Democrats...

And if some good rules changes don't take place, that is the trouble. Rules changes are being considered now. Let us hope that something intelligent comes out of this. I am afraid the Democrats may be putting us into the dark ages for a while if there is no compromise.

By the way, there was a good article about this by Bob Dole in "The New York Times" on the Op-Ed page of April 27. There are some interesting letters countering his argument too.

I said: "Flea mass transit."

The reason is that I am amazed every day at the traffic volume that rolls down the highways in this country.

Hybrids are not the answer to the mega-gallons of gas that we burn each day. We must somehow develop a better attitude toward travel while still keeping our right to independent free movement. Hybrids conserve gas but they do not change how we use our highways.

Of course, with all the technology that we have these days, we may be on the verge of new ways to use highways. I hope so. One impressive thing about the Autobahn is how the Germans (with their typical German efficiency) monitor and regulate the flow of traffic with computers and other technologies -- even though the Autobahn is unlimited anarchy as far as speed goes and could never be done in this country, I don't think.

I said to Flea: "Conservatives are trying to save SS from failing."

This in reference to the Democrat's continued pretext that SS is not in financial trouble. It is. It would be in less trouble if our government had put the money from Social Security and Medicare paycheck deductions into savings accounts as they should have. They did not. Now we, the public, will have to pay those bonds off.

This repayment has got to come from somewhere. If we expect to keep the current budget expenditures and pay off those bonds, then taxes will be raised.

There are other ways, however. One way, as Flea mentions, is cutting the huge military budget. We could push money from the military into those bonds.

Politically, will we really do that? I don't think so. It's overly optimistic to think that we will.

How much fussing is there about closing military bases in a representative's district or how poorly paid a GI is or how bad the retirement benefits are when these discussions happen? A lot. This type of change requires sharp thinking and detailed work by the budget makers and they seem to know only how to use big, blunt instruments right now.

(Additionally, this leaves out of the discussion the question of why some see the military as unnecessary. There are many of us who think -- quite correctly -- that bad people exist in this world and that their cruelty should be stopped. We don't want the United States to develop a "fortress mentality" either. History already has proved that the civilized world can't do isolationism. WWII is the prime example. In current history, Tony Blair has asked the correct question about isolationism and Iraq: "Should Saddam have been put in jail or not?" Certainly he should have. There was no community of nations to do it either. There was too much money being made off Iraq by Europe or Russia and others for them to want to disrupt Iraq.)

Ah...I suppose I could do on…

...I will mention again that Roosevelt did promote Social Security as "private insurance" in order to make it acceptable. And if I do die before reaching retirement age, I would like my family to get all the money that I have put into Social Security. Not going to happen though if I should die young.

And...

How Democrats understand money...

I said: "Policy da Marie Antoinette." Her royal understanding of the problems of hunger were limited. She said if the people were starving, just serve cake! Like there was an unlimited supply. It’s in the history books. Right before she got the guillotine.

If we don't fix Social Security, the Democrats may need to start stockpiling cake.

How was that? More?

Last edited: Monday, May 02, 2005 at 12:24:20 PM

BTW, these are just comments on current events that qualify as "Thanks Democrats!"

Think I will mosey over to the religion thread...

Chief! Chief!

Last edited: Monday, May 02, 2005 at 12:07:18 PM

@JJ - Now that was swell. I understand what you said so much better and I can agree with what you said about the judicial nominees. The Dems are holding up the process cause they can't win. I like the idea of a straight out vote on the nominees and that's why the fillibuster bugs me so. If we want a representative government, we need to allow our representatives to vote.

I don't know if we can really change the traveling habits of Americans. In Europe it is very easy to make the transition to using public transportation since it was so convenient to use. Seemed like there was a train, bus or metro going anywhere you wanted to go. The same also seems to be true (to a lesser degree) in US cities. But I think that since the US is so big and real estate wasn't a big issue for early city planners, that's why inter/intra-city travel to so "difficult". Europeans knew they only had so much space to work with and designed their cities accordingly. There's also this mindset in the US that the road is for cars and trucks and that's it. I'd love to ride my bike to work, but I run to risk of getting hit by either a car or a can thrown from a car window. I see folks walking through my yard all the time because they don't want to walk on the shoulder of the road. It would be cool to ride the train to various towns in my state, but I'm sure the service would die very quickly. We're just too independent for that sort of thing. So there's a lot to be done in order to promote alternative means of travel in the US.

I would like to see less gov't spending on the mechanical parts of the military (planes, bombs and guns) in order to help fund other domestic issues while continuing to support (even raising) GI and veteran pay/benefits. Seems like we could come up with some very effective means of protecting ourselves as a nation and helping other nations in non-lethal manners directed toward the general populace while scaring the crap out of their leaders. I also think it would be easier to subdue a nation (if necessary) by taking out infrastructure instead of a huge body count. Just imagine what an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) would do to the US if employed by North Korea with killing a single person. That would be just as impressive as having nukes.

Holy cow JJ - great post.

And you needed me for......?

I'm still perusing regularly.....standing by.....

@ Stinky

Iraq = a foothold in the M/E.

Also - it wasn't the fellatio that got Clinton impeached - it was the perjury.

:)

(you need to get your ass back to the US before Chow Yung Fat over in N. Korea decides to put nukes on his missiles......)

@JJ

Ahhhhh....much more clear. Thank you for summarizing the voices inside your head. Do the voices ever speak to you about the need for friends in there? Do they complain about the constant stream of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh pouring in from the sides? Do they gripe about the broad, empty expanses in their world? Do they scream out to you begging for enlightenment?

:)

"Cake or death?"

"Uhhh, cake please."

Last edited: Monday, May 02, 2005 at 5:05:59 PM

Chief: "(you need to get your ass back to the US before Chow Yung Fat over in N. Korea decides to put nukes on his missiles......)" yah, noted. That chow yung fat is one crazy mother-shutyermouth...

And as things stand, I return for good in 7 weeks...

I think clinton was impeached because of a "vast right wing conspiracy." :) but anyway, how come no one, not even your "liberal press" is making much of a stink about bush's lying to us about iraq?

JJ: piggy-backing onto 44's observation/adhominism: I'm beginning to think that you are a figment of Karl Rove's imagination projected into somewhat human form. Or stated another way: how is life as a republican talking point?

Snicker snicker.

Last edited: Monday, May 02, 2005 at 7:02:15 PM

Chief! Chief!

Old Black Panther motto: "You got to have a brother before you can get the mother."

It's tough, the gauntlet, brother.

But it's nice to see you drop in every so often too. Don't work too hard.

@ 44

It's good to see you too.

Wanna talk in greater detail? Yawn...

This forum has never been a great place to parse things too finely. Too busy slinging mud at each other, eh?

Food fight instead?

Pose you this question: Of questions and answers, is it easier to get the answers right or the questions?

You're right! The questions are harder.

Keep trying.

I have faith you'll get one correct pretty soon...

The answers are delivered on silver platters, served up by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc like hors d'oerve waiters at a museum opening. No need to think critically at all. Turn on the radio, or the TV, or scan some blogs, the answers come easy...unless, the right questions are asked .

You want parsing? Oh waiter, bring that silver platter over here. Yes, you with the cigar ashes and oxycontin powder on your cummerbund. Two or three for me, with a napkin and a glass of champagne, please.

On the topic of judicial nominations, your bacon-wrapped answer is that the current filibustering of Bush's judicial nominations is: 1) Inappropriate because it is allowing 'Law' to be shaped by political motivations; and, 2) Demonstrative of a need for "rule changes".

Delicious. So flaky and warm. I pat my mouth, crumple the napkin, finish my glass and return both to your platter in the form of two 'easy' questions: Why did our founding fathers give the senate advice and consent authority over judicial nominations? Why is the filibuster an available option to a minority party?

Answers to both can be found in many areas, should you choose to look. I bet they will not be warm and flaky, nor served up by your favorite waiters. Be careful not to choke.

Waiter! Yes, you with the blotchy face and the falafel that look like miniature loofahs. May I next try one of those, please? And another champagne, thank you.

On social security, your toothpick-skewered answer is that: 1) The program faces a crisis because surpluses have taken the form of bonds requiring problematic repayment; and, 2) You and your family should be entitled to complete reimbursement of your contributions.

Yummy. Just a hint of saffron. Dirty toothpick and empty glass again returned in the form of some 'easy' questions: If paying bonds is a worry, might there be a better first issue to tackle in order to secure this country's long-term financial well being? How will private accounts be financed, while sustaining payments to today’s beneficiaries, without expediting the need to repay those pesky bonds? If all contributors received reimbursement in full, what would happen to the benefits of the early disabled?

Go find the answers to those and, here, have a glass of water to help wash them down. Sorry I can't afford the champagne...my private accounts have been getting killed over the last four or five years.

Last edited: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 at 5:44:09 AM

^ Needs a new investment adviser. Also needs to schedule a checkup - all that cholesterol isn't good for you. An AA session might not hurt either.

Wait a minute - I forgot......it takes a village .......

Since I'm on weight watchers...I'll only have a nibble...besides, I'm retired and ready to start sucking the gov't tit - can't kick off before I get what's rightfully mine (card carrying AARP):

Microwaved....warmed over Deaniac talking points.

How about some real cuisine??

Why is this the first Congressional session in over 200 years that the filibuster is being utilized in this manner? Furthermore - why are the Democrats in the Senate filibustering these nominees for no other reason than they are GW nominees?

Be careful and take small bites - you might get the runs......

Moe! Larry! Cheese!

*JJ chunks a cream pie at 44. Chief whips out his Weight Watcher's calculator to see if daily caloric intake is too high to catch and eat airborne dessert.*

Quite arty, fo fo.

If I could get paid for posting on this forum, I'd wear you out and have Rabban begging for a break...

Ah, back to work. It's been lunch. Five Spice Sea Scallop with Seared Foie Gras served on Parsnip Puree finished with a Port Wine Fig Sauce. Asparagus with a Hollandaise Sauce. Star Anise Blackberries with Lemon Sorbet for dessert.

Buuuuuuuuurrp...Bon Appetit.

I am digesting your rebuttals...

I eat with the king.

...and I just took a $65 paycut (per payday) today to make sure my federal and state taxes are covered. My wife took a $10K/yr job (that's $185/wk net) to help with some bills, but then that put us up into the next tax bracket. If it hadn't been for the child tax credit and an education credit, almost all of her net for '04 would have gone towards our tax bill. What would've been the point then of her working at all?

Last edited: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 at 2:04:14 PM

That's the point - to get you on the gov't tit. After all - "it takes a village......."

Hey Rabban, go tell wifey to pick up a couple more jobs. Don't she want to be uniquely american? Don't she want to be fantastic? You big whiners...get out there and work some more.

_{I became a little less Republican today.}

Last edited: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 at 6:07:15 AM

OK, a little better now. I'm still for everyone paying their "fair share" of taxes and everyone paying an equitable percentage of their income into the system. That being said, I think everyone needs to pay it and not have the opportunity to shelter it offshore. Any tax break or opportunity that's out there needs to be equally and easily accessible to everyone. So $11.5 TRILLION in assets are earning $860 BILLION in interest??? Just how many billions does a billionaire need? How many summer houses and how many fancy cars? Sure, they've run the risks and made the cash, but if the money is made by an American individual or business, then they need to pay American taxes. $860 Billion. I know it wouldn't all be taxes...BUT, wouldn't that cover the financial issues we've all brought up in the thread? SSI, the Iraq War, poverty, education and free beer for everyone??? Sheesh!

That just ain't right man, it just ain't right.

Last edited: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 at 8:28:04 AM

"I became a little less Republican today."

And that much more human!

Just joking...! Sorta.

Btw: it may interest you to know that rupert murdoch (FOX) deprived the government of 10s of millions of dollars in taxes this year by offshoring his corporation. The scum bag.

While your ol lady works to give her check to the go'ment, rupert is paying jack-squat.

Last edited: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 at 1:28:31 PM

Why is this image coming to mind? ;)

Where'd 44 go? Constipated maybe?

Maybe JJ served up too much - the foie gras will get you everytime.

Here's a good editorial on SS:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002261757&zsection_id=268883724&slug=dionne04&date=20050504

Oooo, that's gotta sting a bit ;)

Good article LGM.

I wish Bush would just come clean. Why doesn't he stand up and say:

"Uhhhh, I, uhhhh, don't like....you see...uhhhh....it's bad. This social security thing is...uhhhh....it's welfare....uhhh....it's kind of like welfare...some people might say it's kind of like welfare...and its making people give their hard earned money to the....uhhh...to the less....uhhhh....you see....it redistrib....it redistribs....uhhh....it realloc...it reallocutes....uhhh....you see...the money goes to other people and I think....uhhhh....people should be able to keep their own money. And I, uhhhh, for a long time....my legacy...if I....I mean if we....yeah, if we could....uhhhh....if we could get rid of this social welfare program it would be a big....uhhh...a victory for conserva....uhhhh....for this party. Not for my legacy...I mean....you see....uhhhh....we just got to fix it."

Last edited: Friday, May 06, 2005 at 5:21:38 PM

Still chewing JJ?

Ok, you win.

There are no wealthy Democrats in the world, so they couldn't possibly be hiding money in offshore tax havens.

And this quote from the SSA:

...is so much political hype. Bush probably has his hit men down at Social Security telling those PR types to write distorted, twisted, inaccurate lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I quit! I'm giving up the Republican Party and I'm going to Kansas and see Thomas Frank and see if I can absorb all he knows. Stinker quoted his book months back. He knew! Yea, he knew!

And, Chief, it does take a village! I was so wrong... Institutionalization in the way that Europe institutionalizes is indeed and in truth the only way. If I have to sell my home to get medical care because I'm so far back in line in the National Health, it's OK. I can proudly say that I support the National Health even from the depths as I sell pencils on the sidewalk!

Now I will no longer resent payroll tax as a "disincentive" to work. Nor will I consider any kind of illegal employment. Wealth, Chief, is in the eye of the beholder. Social Security never will be a genuine "wealth creator." Tax us Democrats, tax us.

Soma! Soma! Soma!

...rhymes with yo moma..

Last edited: Friday, May 06, 2005 at 6:57:03 PM

Ten years ago your SSA forecast that the trust fund would dry up in 2029. Today they've pushed that date out to 2041. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it's good until 2053. And if you use slightly less pessimistic economic projections than these guys do — something a lot of economists think we should — it's good until at least 2060 or 2070. In other words, Social Security is in good shape for at least 35 years and maybe more like 60. Social Security is not in a crisis, no matter how many times you or Bush say it is. In fact, the trust fund has strengthened considerably during the past ten years, and if Bush would get focused on fixing the deficit, it would get stronger yet.

But what if it doesn't get stronger, you ask? What if we have to raise taxes to pay off those pesky bonds? What if those demographic trends were to push the date closer and closer?

Oh, the horror. Quick...let's create private accounts! That will fix everything.

Come on JJ. If you want private accounts, just say so. Tell people that you don't like the idea of your money going to the poor, to the elderly, to the handicapped, to that black guy who's claiming his back is hurt and he can't work anymore. But don't try to sell us on some bullshit story about a crisis needing to be fixed. We're in need of good persuasion on too many other stories right now. Please, sell me some more on the justification for the war in Iraq, or the need to drill for oil in Alaska, or the myth of global warming, or that we're not going to leave any child behind.

There are liars, damned liars and George Bush.

Last edited: Saturday, May 07, 2005 at 5:19:31 AM

@ 44

FINALLY - you brought the ribs out!!! I appreciate the facts of your post, except for the fact that we're trying to predict 20-30 years into the future.

Does anyone remember what folks back in the '60's though life would be like in the year 2000? Jetsons , anyone? (Where the hell is Rosie?)

For the life of me I cannot grasp the concept of continuing with a system whose expenses exceed it's revenues.

If Social Security were a company it's stock would be worthless, it's CEO would be brought up on charges, and it's market share would suck due to the low quality of services it provides in comparison with it's competitors.

The phrase "Ponzi Scheme" comes to mind.

SS *is* getting a little worn....maybe Rab or JJ can get us over to dependence on foreign oil (which actually covers 2 of your requests), the PR of global warming and why we shouldn't buy beachfront property, and the fact that children will continue to be left behind as long as state educators aren't being held accountable for what they do with federal education money.

@ Flea

I am curious what criteria the rankings were done by? Colombia @ #23? Cuba, India, nor Japan are ranked? They are all three internationally accepted as "role models" of public health.

Maybe the US would make the list if we stopped sending so much philanthropic money out of the country.....

Great point. I totally agree.

Oh, and by the way, in 2004 social security revenues exceed expenses by more than $1.7 trillion dollars. Yes, that was REVENUE EXCEEDING EXPENSES. And, yes that was trillion with a "t".

Last edited: Saturday, May 07, 2005 at 12:18:58 PM

Anyone else see this? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Church-Politics.html?

It was buzzing around the blogosphere friday, now its finally made the mainstream press. Why are these nut jobs always conservatives? Always republicans? Pretty creepy.

And...after 10 days in the brittish press, it's finally made it to american shores

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/11574258.htm

Does anyone out there care?

Didn't think so.

Hi all,

Can't stay long...hectic travel schedule coming up. I want to say again we would have one helluva time sitting around knocking back some cold ones discussing all of the above....we would just need to rtemember to keep a defibrillator on hand for JJ.

Anyway - on with the program:

@ 44

I honestly had no idea that SS had to take that much in to pay out it's current liabilities. I'm thinking it kinda proves my point...imagine what it would have to do in oder to cashflow in the coming generations of increasingly expensive healthcare, increasing population, and an increasing amount of people retiring? Holy cow - is there really such a number as "kazillion"???

;)

While I'm at it - and, incidentally, going to be absent, so I can throw this Malatov cocktail and run - I want to address the elephant in the room (pardon the pun):

"The very fact that folks being against giving someone the OPTION of private investment accounts vs paying into the current system kinda tells it all."

Did I pull that outta my a$$ you say? Au contraire, mon friere....

Why would someone be against giving someone else an OPTION? Because they know....deep down....that without SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY they don't stand a chance in hell of getting back even a fraction of what they put in.

I know, I know....what about the folks that can't afford to put money into the system? Well - guess what? That's what welfare is for. It's my understanding that you can only participate in the Social Security system if you have paid into it. If I'm wrong - flame away and I'll apologize when I get back.

@ Flea

Thanks for the explanation. I completely agree that the dollars that are being spent on healthcare in the US could be spent a helluva lot more smartly and efficiently.

@ Stinky

I'm flattered....a quote from our very own state newspaper!! I suppose you noticed that each story doesn't begin with a bible passage and end with a request for donations be sent to Jim Bakker's new deal.

:)

As you can see, we even have biased media down south (j/k). Seriously - about both stories, in order:

- Whether a conservative or liberal, it is a damn shame that someone would be ostracized from their church, mosque, coven, etc for their political beliefs. Anyone in a position of authority or influence, such as the good reverend, SHOULD be removed from it and reprimanded....and it sounds like that's what is happening.

The same goes for anyone who fires or blacklists someone for the same thing above...say, for example, for being denied a promotion at a university for being "too conservative". Or being fired because their managers found out they voted conservative. If this is news, I'll try and research the links, as the stories are kinda old - back around Dec / Jan.

- On GW's push to oust Hussein....I know all of the conspiracy elements are there (Hussein plotting to kill GHW Bush, etc.) but what stops me EVERY TIME from buying into it is...if this guy's such a dumbass and all of this is personal, then how on earth did he convince the THOUSANDS of people that would need to buy into it that there was a real need to invade? To boot - where in the hell where all of these report writers / leakers when all of this was going on? The run up to the invasion was MONTHS in the making - plenty of time for SOMEONE to leak the "goods" to the ratings addicted sensation whores we call an objective media. Especially as pissed as everyone was after Gore lost the election?

Again - bad intelligence was the root cause for falsely claiming WMD...but then again, you gotta admit....a couple hundred thousand Kurds can't be wrong . After that - the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he didn't have any WMD....of course, this was before he kicked out the UN inspectors. Jesus - if the guy did everything but say "So, whatcha gonna do about it??"

At the end of the day, I kinda look at like this....it's kinda like when a child molester gets murdered, or dies in a car wreck, or whatever.

He had it coming.

But did 1600 american soldiers also have it coming?

Also: that's some pretty classic ends-justify the means thinking there. Did you read the memo? I can get you a link if you like. It came from M16. Blair's government did not dissavow it. You say why wasn't it leaked earlier? Well, it was a brittish memo. It was leaked at a time calculated to inflict the most damage on tony blair. Perhaps no american corollary exists to be leaked.

"then how on earth did he convince the THOUSANDS of people that would need to buy into it that there was a real need to invade?"

Well...he was the president. And there was this thing called 9/11. And don't discount the drum role the press provided... Its quite easy to persuade by means of fear tactics. Don't you remember how this all went down?

"Again - bad intelligence was the root cause for falsely claiming WMD..." well, that's what bush says anyway. Of course, several dozen credible sources including members of his cabinent (remember Paul O'Neil?...Richard Clark?) say otherwise, that bush was working on the iraq angle well in advance of the facts. I guess you can explain that away too? Or toss it out completely.

Yeah, those kurds got it bad. So did those shiites we got killed too. And for the record, saddam's biological and chemical weapons support? Well...he got that from the US back when he was using it to kill Iranians. Also public record. Of course, back then, no one really gave much of a shit about gas victims. That is, until it was politically expediant to turn on saddam...who, for the record, always was a viscious bastard.

So...nice little dance you've done there chief! At the end of the jig...ideology intact...despite the steady march of facts. Why am I not surprised?

As for universities excluding conservatives...good luck finding a credible source on that. My suggestion: go right to Foxnews.com. Probably bookmarked in your "favorites". Right?

Digesting your riposte'.

I would like a link to the actual memo if you would post it....I hate when the media quotes something without providing a link to the actual source.

You gotta give me credit for the "ratings addicted sensation whores we call an objective media" line though.......

Last edited: Monday, May 09, 2005 at 7:44:58 AM

Interested in stink's spin on this