data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c46c7/c46c74c5a604d9c1f0c9239be49e2925d2a0dd68" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76527/765270151e36a3985aa4ae783871f3d57c8fcd88" alt=""
Bush on Social Security: Sharing is BAD!
Posted by Plaid Adder
Added to homepage Fri Apr 29th 2005, 08:30 AM ET
I'm glad he doesn't give press conferences very often. I can't take much more o' this.
Oh my GOD, it is PAINFUL! The disconnect between the questions and the answers, the rambling, the leaping from talking point to talking point as if they are ice floes giving him temporary shelter from the black and turbulent waters of ignorance and incoherence, the first-grader vocabulary, and the BULLSHIT! Just the BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!
Social Security, for instance. It's not fair! It's not fair because if you are paying into it and then you die before you're 62 your spouse can't inherit both your benefits and her benefits! The money you paid in just DISAPPEARS!
No, it doesn't disappear, asshole. What happens is that it goes into the common pot out of which other people are drawing their benefits. In other words, it gets SHARED. That is the whole principle of Social Security: that people share their money. We are putting in money now from our payroll taxes; well, that money is not going to 'come back' to us when we retire. That money is paying for peoples' benefits right now. Our benefits will be paid by the taxes of the people who are working when we retire. And so on. Everyone pays into the kitty and the kitty pays out to everyone. And that is how, if you hit retirement age but you have blown your whole wad on the ponies or single malt scotch or Enron or college tuition for your kids, you can still survive--because even though 'your' money has gone up in smoke, the kitty into which everyone has been paying will still take care of you. That's what a safety net is.
The private account thing is based on the same logic: I don't want my money paying for some other bozo's benefits! I want MY money to pay for MY benefits! Mine mine mine all mine! And somehow he never ends up explaining that if, for instance, I decided right now to invest some of my social security taxes in my voluntary stock market account, that would mean that the pool of money available for people who are retired *right now* would decrease by that amount. And if everyone was doing it, then the pool would decrease significantly. OK, so when we fire up these 'private accounts,' basically we are refusing to play along and put into the kitty. Nevertheless, the number of people drawing from the kitty does not change. So how does this help make the system solvent?
It doesn't. That's not the point. The point is: You get to keep YOUR MONEY! Fuck everyone who's retired right now! Why should THEY get YOUR MONEY?
If you take what Bush said about the unfairness of Social Security at face value, it boils down to this: Sharing is bad. And of course, that is why they hate Social Security, isn't it, because it's sharing. Sharing...you know, it's kind of one of them Communist things.
@#$!,
The Plaid Adder
Bookman off-base on BushThis guy truly lives a sheltered life if every person he knows thinks Dubya is doing a great job. Not to mention the fact that Suwanee Georgia is smaller that a pimple on a gnat's ass.
I continue to be amazed, but no longer surprised, at articles like Jay Bookman's column ("The numbers crunch Bush into a failure," issue, April 28).
It is always the polls. What I do not understand is that not a single person I know agrees with Bookman, and between work and other activities, I know a lot of people.
President Bush has made mistakes --- everyone does. But overall, he has done better than his predecessor.
CLOYCE LAMB, Suwanee
The numbers crunch Bush into a failureMakes sense to me but then I live in a populated area :-)
Published on: 04/28/05
History may record that the Bush presidency, and the Republican revolution that he hoped to lead, reached its high water mark on March 21, 2005, the day that President Bush signed a bill authorizing federal court intervention in the Terri Schiavo tragedy.
By overreaching so badly in that case, Republicans gave many Americans a fresh appreciation of the dangers of unchecked government arrogance, not to mention a renewed respect for the checks and balances needed to restrain that arrogance.
And for Republicans, that realization came at the worst conceivable time. Once that insight had taken hold, voters could see that same kind of arrogance at work in the GOP's move to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay by rewriting House ethics rules. And when Republican leaders began to attack federal judges as part of their holy crusade against the only government branch beyond their control, what had been a vague and growing unease began to coalesce into a deep distrust.
In fact, according to pollsters, Americans have come to reject both the premise and the tactics of the GOP's crusade. In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 26 percent said federal judges are too liberal; 18 percent said they're too conservative; and 52 percent think they're about right.
In that poll, an astounding 66 percent opposed the Republican effort to make it easier to ram even the most extreme judges through the Senate confirmation process. Like the change of ethics rules in the House, that proposed change is seen as an effort to remove all impediments to raw power.
That sea change in public perception has coincided with another dangerous trend for Republicans. On critical issues from Iraq to energy to the economy and Social Security, enough time has now passed to see the results of Bush's ideology-driven policies, and it isn't pretty.
The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen almost 800 points from its high in early March, and respected figures such as Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and his predecessor, Paul Volcker, are warning about dire consequences if the federal deficit is not addressed in a serious manner. Bush, however, has made it clear that he has no intention of changing course.
As a result, a Gallup poll last week found that only 31 percent of Americans rated the economy as good or excellent; 68 percent called it fair or poor. Back in early March, 50 percent of Americans told Gallup they believed the economy was getting worse; by last week, it had jumped to 61 percent.
Reality is rearing its ugly head in Iraq as well. More than three months after elections that were supposed to transform the country, Iraqis may only now be overcoming the ethnic feuding that has frustrated formation of a new government. U.S. military recruiting is falling, soldiers die, and this week, the CIA officially abandoned its search for weapons of mass destruction.
More telling still, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked in a press briefing Wednesday whether we were winning or losing in Iraq. It's a straightforward question, but Rumsfeld responded by saying that "winning or losing is not the issue for 'we,' in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word 'winning' and 'losing' in a war."
In the ABC-Washington Post poll, 56 percent of Americans said they disapprove of Bush's policy in Iraq, and 54 percent said the war is not worthwhile. According to a Gallup poll earlier this month, 50 percent of Americans recognized that the Bush administration deliberately deceived them into war, up from 31 percent less than two years ago. That number will grow.
Pick your area, and the results are the same. Failed policy, and poll numbers that reflect it. Energy? Only 31 percent in a recent Associated Press poll said Bush was handling our energy problems effectively. Social Security? Bush has traveled the country trying to unite Americans on Social Security, and polls indicate that he's succeeding, if not quite in the way he had in mind. Opposition to Bush's handling of Social Security jumped from 56 percent to 64 percent between March and April. In a CBS poll earlier this month, only 25 percent said they were confident in his handling of Social Security.
Those poll results can't be explained by Democratic attacks or a liberal media. It's just the cold, hard recognition of failure setting in.
David Sirota says:
The National Review is the latest place where this attempted manipulation is taking place. Their columnist asks "Isn't it at least a little bit embarrassing for DNC chair Howard Dean that he can't get an official Democrat to run for the Senate in his home state?" No, actually, it's not. In fact, it's on purpose, as Sanders and Dean have been colleagues for years. Polls show that Sanders is the most popular politician in Vermont. He has been a longtime thorn in the GOP's side both at home and nationally. This kind of rhetoric from the GOP is nothing more than a transparent Karl Rove-esque ploy - and the national Democrats aren't having any of it. Already, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Democratic Senate campaign chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have indicated that Sanders is their candidate. And I'm betting Vermonters aren't going to like Republicans trying to manipulate their elections.
Bush's plan bestRebuttal:
If the polls are correct, it is hard to believe that most Americans do not want more money for retirement or to have control of their investments.
President Bush's Social Security reform is the best idea that has been recommended since Social Security was initiated. Here are some important facts that everyone should consider:
The return on your Social Security taxes is 1 percent at best, and you have to live to retirement to receive it. The return on a small percentage of your Social Security taxes invested in mutual funds would be between 3 percent and 10 percent. The funds could be invested in bank CDs and would earn about 3 percent to 4 percent.
These investments in personal accounts would be accessible to the worker at retirement or to their family upon the death of the worker. If a worker dies before retirement in the present Social Security system, the Social Security taxes are kept by the government.
Today's Social Security system is known as the world's largest Ponzi scheme; the first enrollees get paid by the funds contributed by later enrollees.
Yes, there is a cost for the conversion to the new system. As the old saying goes, "Pay me now or pay me later." The government will have to pay the cost of the changeover now or pay a larger amount to cover the cost of benefits to retirees later.
Do not believe the propaganda of AARP and the Democrats. They believe government is the answer to every problem, and you are not smart enough to plan for your own future and the future of your family.
Harry Paddon
Lady Lake
Missing the pointAny comments?
Harry Paddon's Monday letter to the editor on Social Security privatization echoes Republican talking points quite nicely. Sadly, such points miss the point.
Social Security is social insurance, not an investment scheme. Less than two-thirds of Social Security payments are made to retirees; significant amounts are paid to children, surviving spouses and the disabled. The purpose of these insurances is to prevent destitution in the event of tragedy or old age.
It was founded as a reaction to the misery of millions, and it intentionally includes a generational compact: We all pay a little bit as we work, and we all receive benefits when we get old, or (God forbid) are struck with disabling illness or injury, or lose a family member we depended upon. Now, if Republicans want to debate the wisdom of these intentions, I say great, let the battle be joined.
Instead we are deluged with gobbledygook about "investment returns." It's hogwash. The simple facts are, if the economy performs as well as privatization backers contend when they invent their estimates of stock returns, Social Security will never go insolvent, period. Alternately, if the economy does so poorly that Social Security is at risk of exhausting its trust fund, then the last place you want your money is the stock market.
Gregory M. Shimkaveg
Oviedo
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis penned the cautionary tale, It Can't Happen Here, chronicling the fictional rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, who becomes President against the protests of Franklin D. Roosevelt and America's saner citizens.More here
A charismatic Senator who claims to champion the common man, Windrip is in the pocket of big business (i.e. Corpos), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, he eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist. Boosted by Hearst newspapers (the FOX News of its day), he neuters both Congress and the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their liberties and installing a fascist dictatorship.
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.Excuse me if I don't take the Pope or his minions seriously because:
A - He was a Hitler Youth. I know. It was compulsory and he was against it, blah blah blah. The fact that he is an ultra-strict uber-conservative shows that he is right in line with that way of thinking.So again, excuse me if I refuse the moral lectures of an immoral jackass.
B - He made the statement that homosexuals bring violence upon themselves.
C - He made the decision to sweep the pedophile priest problem under the rug.
Senate OKs $81B for Iraq, AfghanistanRead on...
Apr 21, 6:59 PM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.
"I can't say it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility."Read on: Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
Dear Sir:
I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.
After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.
I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.
Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.
As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.
John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.
I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.
It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.
Respectfully yours,
Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208
"...one was apparently startled and bolted. The five others followed because they have the tendency to do that."Closely parallels the Republican party in America doesn't it?
"And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."I suppose DeLay wants the justices to get their info from the only outlet sactioned by the GOP. FAUX News.
"judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior. We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."I assume that the definition will begin with something like "All decisions handed down by the Supreme Court must first be considered by Tom DeLay."
In his memoirs, Ratzinger wrote that he was enrolled in the Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He said he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.Duly noted. He is still an Uber-conservative who bears watching. We'll just have to wait and see where he takes the Catholic church in this new era.
Two years later he was drafted into a Nazi anti-aircraft unit as a helper, a common taks for teenage boys too young to be soldiers. A year later he was released, only to be sent to the Austrian-Hungarian border to construct tank barriers.
He deserted the Germany army in May 1945 and returned to Traunstein — a risky move, since deserters were shot on the spot if caught, or publicly hanged as examples to others.
When he arrived home, U.S. soldiers took him prisoner and held him in a POW camp for several weeks. Upon his release, he re-entered the seminary.
Which part of the United States Constitution 'separation of powers' concept do Tom Delay and his fellow republicans not understand? Or, better yet, choose not to understand?Read the rest...
First of all, the "war for oil" argument has never been, "The U.S. only wants lots of oil." That's strawman-making with a vengeance. The charge -- fully substantiated by the Bush gang's own copious writings about their geopolitical ambitions ("Project for the New American Century," et al) -- is that a group of elite interests in the U.S. want to control access to world energy resources in order to maintain and expand their own power and privilege (which they equate with "American interests"), and to put the squeeze on any potential rivals for geopolitical predominance in the coming decades, such as China and India. Whoever has their hand on the oil spigot -- or controls, by threats and bribes, those who do -- can shape the future to their own ends. This power is what the Bushist elite wants, not just the actual black stuff under the ground.Which is, of course, why the U.S. is making plans to create the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world in Baghdad: we're there for the long haul, and not by accident. Remember, this was all laid out by the Project for a New American Century back in 2000
Second, it's ridiculous to imagine that Bush could have gone to Congress and the American people and asked for $280 billion to buy oil futures. And even if he had, what if Saddam, or OPEC, or Hugo Chavez, or Putin, had refused to sell them? Why on earth would any of them have mortgaged their futures and guaranteed their subservience by selling one country "all the world's oil for the next 50 years"? This is a ludicrous assertion.
No, the only Bush way could grab such enormous loot from the public treasury for his cronies was by frightening and manipulating the American people into war. And McEwan's strawman reductionism also overlooks the fact that war is not only profitable for Bush's oil allies (who are now pulling in unfathomable profits), but also (as mentioned in the previous post), the arms manufacturers, giant construction and servicing cartels like Bechtel and Halliburton, the "private equity firms" and investment houses like Carlyle, and so on.
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Love the "Asshat of the Week" postings. The one with Ted Nugent was a hoot. What a dork! Ol' Ted will feel right at home here in sunny FLA if they pass the "Wild West" law that's currently under consideration. It would basically give you the right to blow away anyone you feel is threatening you. Of course, what constitutes a "threat" has not been defined yet---as it stands, I could look at you the wrong way and you could bust a cap in my ass with no fear of reprisal! The lawyers must be salivating like Pavlovs'dogs!
Whoever thought this was a good idea definitely needs an Asshat award. I think all winners should receive a pair of the WildSects classic thongs, (Available here). Tell them it's protective headgear--- so that their stupid thoughts don't leak out and contaminate the rest of us !!! :-)
By Jonathan S. LandayFurther down in the article
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal.Read on...
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who was among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily to the decision.
"This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world. It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it - or any of the key data - from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report."
Iran, IAEA Matters Were Allegedly Kept From Rice, PowellBut of course none of that matters. He'll still be confirmed and it will be business as usual.
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A04
John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.
Read on...