PDA

View Full Version : Nightmare of the Living Dead


Lindsey
February 9th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Remember that Social Security Deform proposal from last year's SOTU speech that gave every appearance of being dead, dead, dead, especially when the president meekly proposed a bipartisan commission to study the Social Security issue?

Well guess again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html?referrer=emailarticle

Effing bastard.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 9th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Sigh... this is infuriating. The country as a whole has said no. When will this man listen????

RayB (France)
February 10th, 2006, 02:25 AM
Sigh... this is infuriating. The country as a whole has said no. When will this man listen????

ROFL!! Ah yes, true 'class' shows through every time!

Judy G. Russell
February 10th, 2006, 09:32 AM
Don't tell me you support this proposal to fundamentally change (and potentially dismantle) Social Security???

ktinkel
February 10th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Sigh... this is infuriating. The country as a whole has said no. When will this man listen????I suspect he is listening — to his constituency.

Judy G. Russell
February 10th, 2006, 02:39 PM
Even most Republicans oppose this nonsense!

ktinkel
February 10th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Even most Republicans oppose this nonsense!Yeah, but not the hardliners.

I suspect (fingers crossed) that Congress will dispose of this, especially now that the Washington Post has publicized it. They will not want to be running with the shadow of Social Security dismantlement hovering around them.

As it is they will have to defend the increases in Medicare Part B monthly charges that just passed both houses.

chm
February 10th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Remember that Social Security Deform proposal from last year's SOTU speech that gave every appearance of being dead, dead, dead, especially when the president meekly proposed a bipartisan commission to study the Social Security issue?

Well guess again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html?referrer=emailarticle

Effing bastard.

--Lindsey
But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

Well, that stinker. How sneaky.

His budget hoovers, BTW. Among too many other bad cuts are a whole load of education cuts. Oh, that will serve the country well...

Yes, we need to reduce our budget deficit, but Bush's ideas of how to do it are just wrong.

Hurry, 2008.

Carolyn

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 05:59 PM
When will this man listen????
I'm afraid he is deaf except to his "Pioneers".

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 06:02 PM
to fundamentally change (and potentially dismantle) Social Security???
There's no "potentially" about it. That's exactly what the proposals are aimed at: dismantling Social Security. And some of the supporters of the plan even let that slip a couple of times. Arch-conservatives have always hated it, and they cannot help salivating at a chance to do away with it.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Even most Republicans oppose this nonsense!
Most Republicans in the country, perhaps, but possibly not most Republicans in Congress, though I think most of then would not thank Bush for making this a hot-button issue in an election year.

Early last year, when the proposal was first floated, Josh Marshall worked up a list that he called the "Conscience Caucus (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/conscience.php)" -- Congressional Republicans who had stated publicly that they opposed the president's plan for Social Security. It is a very small list. Not that there were all that many Republicans who came out in favor of it, either; most of them just weren't saying where they stood. And some (like Virginia's Sen. George Allen) tried to obfuscate, saying they did not favor privatization of Social Security, but then saying that the president's proposal was NOT a privatization plan.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 06:17 PM
I suspect (fingers crossed) that Congress will dispose of this, especially now that the Washington Post has publicized it.
I hope so, but I think that those who want to see that the Social Security program isn't gutted should contact their Congress critters and (1) ask for a clear answer as to whether or not they support the president's proposal; and (2) let them know how they, the voters, feel about it.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 06:21 PM
His budget hoovers, BTW.
LOL!! That is an excellent way to put it!

He cannot cut his way out of budget deficits as long as proposed increases in spending and decreases of tax revenue more than offset what is being cut. He's got to choose between deficits and rolling back his precious tax cuts. And unfortunately, I doubt he is capable of choosing anything but deficits. And those deficits are going to bite us big time a little farther down the road.

--Lindsey

ktinkel
February 10th, 2006, 07:46 PM
I think that those who want to see that the Social Security program isn't gutted should contact their Congress critters and (1) ask for a clear answer as to whether or not they support the president's proposal; and (2) let them know how they, the voters, feel about it.Good idea. Although Connecticut has on the one hand, Rosa DeLauro (Congress) and on the other (Senate) Christopher Dodd (fairly reliable) and [sigh] Joseph Lieberman.

Now if we could get Nancy Johnson (GOP, Congress) to struggle with her party, well, that would be really useful.

I worked on Sam Gjedenson’s first campaign; oh how I wish he were here today!

Lindsey
February 10th, 2006, 11:48 PM
I'm pretty sure my Congressman, Bobby Scott, is strongly against Bush's Social Security proposals, as he very quickly announced that position after they were first floated a little over a year ago. My two senators are another question. George Allen is going to vote the president's way no matter what, and usually I don't even bother to write him, but I think this time I will. John Warner is closer to the middle, and he has the standing to oppose the president without paying a heavy price for it. Whenever there's a coalition of moderate Republicans trying to moderate some of the more extreme right-wing proposals, you'll often find Warner among them. He was with McCain on the anti-torture amendment, he was part of the "Gang of 14" that brought the Senate back from the "nuclear option" brink, and I think he was part of the group that helped hammer out a compromise in the Senate last year on the Patriot Act, though I may be wrong about that last.

He's not one of Josh Marshall's "Conscience Caucus," but I didn't get the feeling, from the answer I got from him to my letter last year, that he was especially anxious to dismantle Social Security. So I have some hope for him.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 11th, 2006, 01:37 AM
Don't tell me you support this proposal to fundamentally change (and potentially dismantle) Social Security???

No, just commenting on lack of good taste and the usual criticism without recommendation of anything better to offer.

Judy G. Russell
February 11th, 2006, 09:50 AM
I don't understand why disagreeing, strongly, is a "lack of good taste". As for alternatives, they have been offered, time and again, including by bipartisan commissions. There are many things that can be done to ensure that Social Security continues to operate well into the future: raise the income level on which the tax is assessed, for one (a suggestion that, by the way, would impact me personally in a fairly significant way). But there's been no effort to even consider those proposals by this Administration, which is determined to secure some form of personal accounts regardless of the total lack of support for same even in the GOP.

Now... what's YOUR solution?

Judy G. Russell
February 11th, 2006, 09:52 AM
I agree that even the GOP Congress members will not want to run with this hanging over their heads in this election. But for heaven's sake... building it into the budget without a single comment?????

Wayne Scott
February 12th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Nothing will be done by the cowards in Congress to solve the fact that very soon working people will be forced to support about 1/3 of a retiree each. The last time Congress actually acted was in 1953 when they created the "notch baby" solution. This was brilliant. It was going to screw people who at the time were in their 30's. Almost no one my age even noticed. I noticed, but I was a lonely voice among my contemporaries. The result was that my birth year was at the bottom of the notch. I draw less social security than people older than I and people younger than I. Even so I have now received SS payments that total far more than my total contribution during my working years. Of course, by the time we notch babies found out about the shafting we had taken, the Representatives and Senators who passed the law had long since retired or died and couldn't be punished by voters.
I'm 84 so my SS future is limited. I've been lucky in investments so even if it's wiped out I'll still be OK.
You youngsters need to get things fixed NOW.

The Curmudgeon, aka The Geezer, aka, The Stupid Old Conservative Idiot

Judy G. Russell
February 12th, 2006, 02:14 PM
I agree that we need to get it fixed now. But I don't agree that we need to fix it by creating private accounts. Every bipartisan commission that has ever looked at this has had a host of other suggestions. Let's get to those!

RayB (France)
February 12th, 2006, 03:52 PM
I don't understand why disagreeing, strongly, is a "lack of good taste". As for alternatives, they have been offered, time and again, including by bipartisan commissions. There are many things that can be done to ensure that Social Security continues to operate well into the future: raise the income level on which the tax is assessed, for one (a suggestion that, by the way, would impact me personally in a fairly significant way). But there's been no effort to even consider those proposals by this Administration, which is determined to secure some form of personal accounts regardless of the total lack of support for same even in the GOP.

Now... what's YOUR solution?

Are you telling me that if I used such language aimed at you that you would not be offended?

As far as SS is concerned, I was not aware that the prez could dictate its format.

My solution? I don't have one and even if I did I have only the ballot box with which to comment. The rest of it is an exercise in futility. I have too many other things in my life over which I have a modicum of control to waste my time trying to prove my opinions and prejudices to anyone who will listen.

Judy G. Russell
February 12th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Are you telling me that if I used such language aimed at you that you would not be offended?Let's see here...I called him "this man" and said he didn't listen. That's hardly the kind of thing to be offended over, except that I really do prefer not to be called "sir."

As far as SS is concerned, I was not aware that the prez could dictate its format.Dictate, no. Direct, possibly. And the direction he sets can (gasp! I know this is hard!) be wrong.

My solution? I don't have one and even if I did I have only the ballot box with which to comment. The rest of it is an exercise in futility. I have too many other things in my life over which I have a modicum of control to waste my time trying to prove my opinions and prejudices to anyone who will listen.When all citizens think that they shouldn't bother even trying to be heard on issues of critical importance in our lives, we have reached a sorry sorry state indeed.

Lindsey
February 12th, 2006, 11:01 PM
But I don't agree that we need to fix it by creating private accounts.
The problem with the solution that the president proposed was that it actually accelerated the problem, making it sooner rather than later that the trust fund would run out of money. "Fixes" like that are not helpful!

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 13th, 2006, 03:25 AM
>>Let's see here...I called him "this man" and said he didn't listen. That's hardly the kind of thing to be offended over, except that I really do prefer not to be called "sir."<<

It was the 'Effing bastard' to which I was referring.

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 07:53 AM
And exactly where did I say that?

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 09:44 AM
>And exactly where did I say that?<

Judy, I've been following this thread and just as a point of clarification and not making any value judgements I think it was Lindsey who used that term--it was the first message in the thread--here it is:


"Remember that Social Security Deform proposal from last year's SOTU speech that gave every appearance of being dead, dead, dead, especially when the president meekly proposed a bipartisan commission to study the Social Security issue?

Well guess again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...er=emailarticle

Effing bastard.

--Lindsey"

Regards, Len

ndebord
February 13th, 2006, 04:35 PM
>And exactly where did I say that?<

Judy, I've been following this thread and just as a point of clarification and not making any value judgements I think it was Lindsey who used that term--it was the first message in the thread--here it is:


"Remember that Social Security Deform proposal from last year's SOTU speech that gave every appearance of being dead, dead, dead, especially when the president meekly proposed a bipartisan commission to study the Social Security issue?

Well guess again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...er=emailarticle

Effing bastard.

--Lindsey"

Regards, Len

Len,


Nothing personal, but if perchance some SOB (effing is way too effete) decides that the will of the people as interpreted by the people's representatives can be dismissed out of hand, as is the case with Social Security legislation that went as south as legislation can go, I want that SOB to move to some country where leaders who make arbitrary and "unitary" decisions are commonly referred to as *Caudillo.

*( I use that term deliberately in honor of the Bush family history in Latin America as Pro Consuls. I figure the local customs rubbed off on this particular offspring of the Bush family tree.)

earler
February 13th, 2006, 05:20 PM
Pray tell us where anyone in the bush family has served in latin america.

-er

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 06:06 PM
The point is not what anyone else may have said. Ray chose to enter the thread and take issue with me. So... where did I say anything like what he doesn't like?

RayB (France)
February 13th, 2006, 06:34 PM
The point is not what anyone else may have said. Ray chose to enter the thread and take issue with me. So... where did I say anything like what he doesn't like?

You are begging the point, Judy, and you know it. Now that are you clear on my message, do you approve of such crass behavior in the forum?

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 06:54 PM
>I want that SOB to move to some country <

Nick, I can understand your desires--all I was attempting to do was show Judy who had used the term "effing bastard" in a message. Regards, Len

ndebord
February 13th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Pray tell us where anyone in the bush family has served in latin america.

-er

Earle,

Please, I always assumed you have a good command of history. Don't disappoint me now. Anyhow, nice parry, but if you have read any bios of GHWB, you would remember his tenure at the CIA in 1977 and later, as VP, his chairmanship of the Special Situation Group for the Gipper from 1981 to 1989. GHWB's training and contacts at CIA as DDI in 1977 certainly came in handy in the 80s as it is specifically that committee which history tells us ran Iran-Contra, or at least the Central American side of things.

As for Social Security, if you care to respond to any of my points there, I'm waiting.

ndebord
February 13th, 2006, 08:59 PM
>I want that SOB to move to some country <

Nick, I can understand your desires--all I was attempting to do was show Judy who had used the term "effing bastard" in a message. Regards, Len

Len,

Although I appreciate your understanding of my, as you phrase it, "desires" in this matter, perhaps you'd care to deplore my use of the term SOB. I see no real difference between "effing bastard" and "SOB."

Perhaps the real issue at hand here, which explains why our rhetoric is getting so heated, is the sneaking suspicion from some of us that this particular President is not enamored with representative democracy and prefers to rule without reference or deference to the Constitution and its rules and regulations.

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 10:37 PM
>perhaps you'd care to deplore my use of the term SOB. I see no real difference between "effing bastard" and "SOB."<

Nick, at present I take no position on the use of either term--I was simply pointing out to Judy who used the term "effing bastard" because I thought she felt she was being accused of using that term or was confused about who did use the term.

>this particular President is not enamored with representative democracy and prefers to rule without reference or deference to the Constitution and its rules and regulations.<

Nick, I have been watching a great show on PBS on the American Presidents--it's a 12 hour series--the show pointed to some of the great struggles between the power of the Presidency and that of Congress--I feel that this sorting out of the rules and the interpretation of the Constitution will be worked out--and I don't think it will a point where there will need to be talk of impeachment. I very much enjoyed this weeks Meet The Press and am hopeful a settlement will be worked out--maybe I'm too optimistc but we'll see.

"TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: President Bush insists Congress was briefed about his plan for wiretapping without a court order. What information was shared? When, and in what form? With us, four of the very few congressional leaders who had notice of the eavesdropping plan: former Democratic leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle of South Dakota; the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California; Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra of Michigan; and the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas. A special edition of MEET THE PRESS on the Constitution, legal and political ramifications of domestic wiretapping."

Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 11:00 PM
Everybody here is a grown-up, and unlike Compuserve where we have to be concerned about a contract being cancelled because people get a little hot under the collar, here we don't have to get all bent out of shape because people use language that you might not want to hear on, say, a Superbowl halftime show.

So if you're asking, the answer is no, I'm not going to enforce language rules, or protect people's sensitivities against strong language, and if you want to take issue with that kind of language, take it up with the person who used it. The only rule we WILL enforce around here is against personal attacks on another forum member.

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 11:02 PM
I wasn't in the least bit confused. Those who responded may have been, but I know exactly what I said.

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 11:28 PM
>I wasn't in the least bit confused<

Judy, ah, well maybe I was confused then--won't be the first time. [g] I thought when others were complaining about the use of the "eff bastard " term you might have thought they were accusing you of using that term--I didn't think they were from my reading of the thread. In an attempt at chronological order here's why I reached my conclusion which apparently was not right.

1. Ray: "No, just commenting on lack of good taste and the usual criticism without recommendation of anything better to offer."

2. Judy: "I don't understand why disagreeing, strongly, is a "lack of good taste".

3. Judy: "Let's see here...I called him "this man" and said he didn't listen. That's hardly the kind of thing to be offended over, except that I really do prefer not to be called "sir."<<

4. Ray: "It was the 'Effing bastard' to which I was referring."

5. Judy: "And exactly where did I say that?"


Regards, Len

RayB (France)
February 14th, 2006, 02:08 AM
Everybody here is a grown-up, and unlike Compuserve where we have to be concerned about a contract being cancelled because people get a little hot under the collar, here we don't have to get all bent out of shape because people use language that you might not want to hear on, say, a Superbowl halftime show.

So if you're asking, the answer is no, I'm not going to enforce language rules, or protect people's sensitivities against strong language, and if you want to take issue with that kind of language, take it up with the person who used it. The only rule we WILL enforce around here is against personal attacks on another forum member.

Sigh! With fancy footwork like yours you should have gone into ballet instead of law. I guess that you have answered my original question as 'No' you don't find it in poor taste. Look at all the time you could have saved.

earler
February 14th, 2006, 06:19 AM
I am aware of bush's curriculum vitae. But, he was never posted to latin america. You can't be a pro-consul in a place unless you are there. No bush has been pro-consul in latin america. Anyway, american intervention in latin america predates bush by many years and bush's tenure at the cia was as a government servant. Until his years as vp, then a term as president, bush spent most of his career as in government service. He certainly was never a professional spy.

As for the social security question, I have refrained from making any comment, and will continue to do so.

-er

ndebord
February 14th, 2006, 11:36 AM
I am aware of bush's curriculum vitae. But, he was never posted to latin america. You can't be a pro-consul in a place unless you are there. No bush has been pro-consul in latin america. Anyway, american intervention in latin america predates bush by many years and bush's tenure at the cia was as a government servant. Until his years as vp, then a term as president, bush spent most of his career as in government service. He certainly was never a professional spy.

As for the social security question, I have refrained from making any comment, and will continue to do so.

-er

Earle,

de facto Pro Consul I would say, but since you like your job descriptions narrowly defined:

"Wanted: Executive to manage decision-making for destabilization and potential overthrow of a banana republic. Job description does not require travel outside the Beltway."

Social Security is one of the red flag issues, so if you don't want to talk about it, that is your inalienable right.

Judy G. Russell
February 14th, 2006, 11:38 AM
I understand, Len. But I knew I hadn't said it, and I wanted Ray to look back and realize he was picking his fight with the wrong person.

Judy G. Russell
February 14th, 2006, 11:39 AM
It doesn't matter whether I find it in poor taste; the point is I don't find the taste issue relevant. I'm not going to enforce "good taste" - "poor taste" rules around here.

Now... if we want to talk about dancing around the issues... do you or do you not support privatization of Social Security?

earler
February 14th, 2006, 01:18 PM
The term pro consul meant for the romans a de facto consul. He wasn't a consul, i.e. not elected by the senate. So, you are saying one or members of the bush family was a de facto de facto consul. Sorry, but that doesn't compute. In any case, a pro-consul was someone who resided in the area which he governed and none of the bush's have lived in latin america, at least not to date. Jeb bush did marry a latin american woman, but that doesn't make him a pro-consul. He's busy enough as the governor of florida.

As for social security, why imply that I am retreating from the discussion? I never got involved, mainly because I am quite ignorant of all the aspects of it.

-er

earler
February 14th, 2006, 01:20 PM
By the way, what is the difference between a 'registered user++ [sic]" and a member of this group?

-er

lensue
February 14th, 2006, 01:46 PM
>I wanted Ray to look back and realize he was picking his fight with the wrong person.<

Judy, everyone knows you never pick a fight with us NJ people--we're the roughest! Regards, Len [r,d,g]

Judy G. Russell
February 14th, 2006, 01:57 PM
A member has access to certain private sections that generally aren't very active but offer a place where people can say something that (about a health issue, just as an example) won't get picked up by Google. Registered users don't have that access.

Anyone who wants to be a member only has to pop a request into the Requests for Access section.

Judy G. Russell
February 14th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Hey hey... you know me... I'll pick a fight with anybody!