Democrats & Liberals Archives

Our Trustworthy Administration

After years of distrust, I’ve come to realize that I now trust the Bush Administration.

In the aftermath of September 11, I was pleased with the initial measured rhetoric from Bush, but as a liberal Democrat, I distrusted him a bit. Still, in that brief window I could count myself among the 90% of Americans who approved of his job. The shock of a common enemy indeed brought us all together, and I agreed with much of the rhetoric I heard, in spite of retaining an element of distrust.

Increasingly though, since that time, Bush has earned lots of trust:

When it comes to defending the interests of our fine corporations against costly regulations which might protect our environment, Bush is solidly reliable.

For the wealthy who face huge tax bills, and might ordinarily fear that previously promised tax cuts might have to compete with popular programs which support the poor and middle class, Bush has repeatedly allayed those fears.

Defense contractors who might naturally be concerned that the enormous deficit spending of the last 5 years could cut into the government largesse to which they've grown accustomed can now rest easy. You can count on this guy not to be concerned with a growing deficit when your interests are at stake.

If you're worried that a little concern for civil liberties or decency might limit a policy which defends the use of aggressive interrogation that might include torture against those who might be our enemies in the aftermath of revelations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanmo, rest easy, this President has elevated the author of those defense of torture memos to the chief law enforcer of the land.

Are you part of the religious right and you want to be pandered to with buzzwords promoting the culture of life, whether or not they'll ever come to be embedded in policy? Shop no further, Bush is a reliable mouthpiece for demagogic pronouncements of that kind.

Who says this administration can't be trusted?

Sure, you never know quite what they'll do next in foreign policy, or when a domestic disaster hits. And even though faithfulness to his friends can generally be counted on to trump wise policy, occasionally Bush will abandon them if they get caught in too much trouble. We'll see just how much longer DeLay is touted as a good friend.

And then there's the matter of domestic spying. Now some of my liberal colleagues are just sure that the information being gathered is really being used as ammunition against political enemies, not just terrorists. But I'm not so sure. At this point, that's an area where I just distrust Bush. Maybe my subversive activities in support of poverty programs or against torture policy are being monitored, but maybe not. But I'll tell you where I do trust Bush! He's not gonna let a little controversy around maybe breaking the law get in the way of an opportunity to increase executive power.

No, when it comes to protecting the wealthy, pandering to the base, defending torture, or aggrandizing power, I don't see the problem. Bush and his cohorts are as trustworthy as they come.

Posted by Walker Willingham at January 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Comments
Comment #112855

I think we should make a toast to the consistancy of this Administration… and then drink heavily…

Posted by: tony at January 13, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #112858

but…but…but..Clinton!!!

(sorry I just wanted to be the first to say it)

Posted by: chantico at January 13, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #112863

Walker and Chantico,

When you criticize our government you put our troops in harms way.(I just love this one)

Now, Walker it is my sworn duty as a die-hard Bush supporter to compare you to michael Moore, make a remark about Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, then question your patriotism.
I will also make sure to mention the “blowjob”, Clinton received.(player haters)
I will bring up as many unsupported points as I can, that are vague and even based on proven untruths.
This is where my final response,full of rightwing talk show host buzz words and a hairsbreath from name-calling is inserted.
Your Pal,
Bush Supporter

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 13, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #112874

Walker:

While I heartily disagree with your sentiments as stated, I enjoyed the posting. I knew the headline was going to be misleading, but I still smiled as you segued into your list.

Its worth noting that so far, only “left” side posters have engaged in any of the so-called standard points. It reminds me of the “lefty’s” who talk about how they never listen to Limbaugh, yet know all the details about his show. Kinda ironic.

On the flip side, the economy is surging, elections in Iraq have been successful, corporate criminals such as Ebbers of WorldCom, Kozloski of Tyco, Fastow and many others of Enron etc have been tried, found guilty and sentenced, and there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. These are all good things, though I’m sure some of you out there will hurriedly find the cloud to cover my silver lining.

Walker, nice post. I do so love sarcasm.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 13, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #112875

“I will bring up as many unsupported points as I can, that are vague and even based on proven untruths”

You might as well, Walker just wrote an entire piece based on that.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #112879
These are all good things, though I’m sure some of you out there will hurriedly find the cloud to cover my silver lining.

*points to WHO they’re electing in Iraq*

;-)

Posted by: mattLaw at January 13, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #112882

You liberals are all traitors! And you liberals never answer any quesitons either, too. So that means Sammy Alito is a liberal too, huh? And you made his kids mommy cry too. Boy liberals are mean and stupid. And Besides, if you’re not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry from wiretaps or tape recordings of private conversations!

Love and Kisses,
Linda Tripp

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #112891

—-
These are all good things, though I’m sure some of you out there will hurriedly find the cloud to cover my silver lining.
—-

I wouldn’t call it a lining - more like a noose.

Posted by: tony at January 13, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #112894
On the flip side, the economy is surging
Of course there’s Inflation, a bursting housing bubble, uncontrolled deficit spending, a jobless recovery (68% of employable people are employed, median wages are dropping).
elections in Iraq have been successful
successful for who? Why are the insurgents still attacking as often as before and why are the generals now calling this a civil war?
corporate criminals such as Ebbers of WorldCom, Kozloski of Tyco, Fastow and many others of Enron etc have been tried, found guilty and sentenced
Yup, now lets convict DeLay and the rest of the Abramoff bunch and we’re half on our way
and there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.
Must be Bush, we all know how good he did the first time around. Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #112895

Walker — both funny, and tragically true.
tony — operative word in your one-liner: toast. It’s what I’m hoping the Neocon’s will be within the GOP real soon.
Andre, Dave — Hilarious replies! Loved them.

jbod:
“I do so love sarcasm.”

Joe, we finally agree on something! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #112903

Dave:

Take a deep breath….relax.

First, dontcha think it would be prudent for there to be charges made with regard to Abramoff, because otherwise, what specifically do you want convictions for? Cart before the horse, just maybe? I’ve called clearly for those involved to be held fully accountable (‘throw the book at them’ is what I’ve said), but I’ve also clearly said that investigation and evidence beats simply going on an uninformed witchhunt.

Re the economy, I’d be interested in where you got your information regarding median wages dropping and 68% of employable people working—can you provide those so we can all ascertain the accuracy of those claims…thanks. Additionally, in almost every surging economy, inflation is something to be watched. I enjoy how you think though—-if the economy is going up, you get scared of inflation…if it goes down you get scared of recession. One thing stays the same…your fear.

Regarding attacks—- the people you call “insurgents”, I call terrorists. I do this because they are not attacking military alone, nor are they even attacking government officials. They are randomly bombing crowded marketplaces, they have attacked funeral processions, they’ve attacked schools and teachers. These are not tactics of an insurgency—they are tactics of terrorists. And they attack for their own reasons, and success or failure will not deter them completely. Give in to them, and they will find a new reason to attack.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 13, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #112915

jbod:

dontcha think it would be prudent for there to be charges made with regard to Abramoff, because otherwise, what specifically do you want convictions for?
Yup, they’re not convicted, yet. The wheels turn slowly, especially for the scum in power. Whatever their party affiliation. Took years to get Nixon on watergate, years to get willie on his BJ, years more before Bush on his lies, more before DeLay on his bribes.
median wages dropping and 68% of employable people working…One thing stays the same…your fear
Got the data from NPR and other sources. Takes minimal research, I’ll let you pick your sources. As for fear. That fear makes me plan. Planning has made me money (for example, after the energy policy meetings were behind closed doors, I bought alot of oil stock. Did well in gasoline too, lost some recently, so I’m out of that now). The fear is not for me, it’s for fools who think things are great and are not planning.
you call “insurgents”, I call terrorists…Give in to them, and they will find a new reason to attack
OK, terrorists. It’s still a civil war. And where do all these suicide bombers come from? We made them. Did you read or hear of the article in a professional Army magazine by the Brit general? I never said give in to them, what i’ve said before is force the Iraqi’s stand up for themselves. As for reasons, terrorists don’t need them, they terrorize until they get what they want. The suicide bombers are just the professional terrorists ammo, and we’re giving them the ammo.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #112916

Chanitco

I don’t plan to compare President Bush to President Clinton, but that would be a valid thing to do. After all, we need to compare the real world activities of our leaders. I believe there is too much lack of realism in the criticism of this President. The test of anything is not what it does in the ideal world, but rather how bad it gets when corrupted by the real one.

Walker

I know you are being facetious, but in many ways it is true that President Bush is actually carrying out the sorts of policies he promised. I think this has surprised many liberal commentators. For example, your first point re regulations. I would say, yes he is working to cut regulations and make them more effective. People differ as to the value. For example, I think the “Healthy Forests” initiative is good for the economy and the environment.

The biggest surprise for liberals seems to have been the court. Both sides campaigned on the type of justices they would appoint. What a surprise that Bush is doing what he said he would.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #112923

Dave:

You missed the point. The people you want convicted in the Abramoff thing are NOT EVEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING YET!! You simply have it backwards. You first charge them…..and then find them guilty or innocent; not the other way around.

Regarding your sources….thanks for not answering. Telling me you got “data from NPR and other sources” gives me no ability to check into what YOU say is valid information. Sounds more like hearsay to me, but I’ll still give you the opportunity to clarify it.

I didn’t mean to insinuate that you want to give in to terrorists or insurgents. Simply that I don’t think we create them…they create themselves. They get angry, find a reason to attach to that anger, and then act on that anger. They are there when we have not antagonized them, and they are there when we do things that antagonize them. They terrorize until they get what they want…then they find more ‘wants’ and keep terrorizing.

By the way, we seem to be pulling troops out of Iraq—-I’d guess that makes you happy that Bush is doing what you want, right? It forces the Iraqi’s to be more in control of their fate.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 13, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #112933

jbod;

I din”t miss your point. I didn’t need a verdict to know OJ did it by the preponderence if evidence.

Sources: NPR is radio, they have web sites. I don’t log everything I read for referral. You’ll just have to take my word that what I state as fact, vs. opinion, was reported in multiple (reasonably) independent and respected sources.

Since when is Rummy saying “maybe we can reduce troop levels” the same as “reducing troop levels.” I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ll try to find the Army article I was referring to; it’s a validation of what us libs have been saying for years now. By the way, it’s not “what I want” it’s what “I think is best” for our nation.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #112942

jbod:

Offers Strong Critique of U.S. Military in Iraq

Taking the U.S. Economy’s Temperature

Just remember; hope for the best, plan for the worst; don’t stick your head in the sand.

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #113058

Bush is simply making America safe for people like himself, his friends, and the oil companies. I don’t think he has that much interest in Iraq beyond getting rid of S.H.
Bush went into that classroom to read My Pet Goat after he knew a plane had hit the WTC. Cheney was issuing orders to the military on 9/11. Bush obviously had no recollection of its significance or the previous history of attacks and threats.
I say impeach Bush and make Cheney the actual president, maybe he’ll drop dead from a heart attack and Hastert could succeed him. I’ve never really heard anything that bad about Hastert.

Please excuse the double post, it’s the system, not me.

Posted by: ray at January 13, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #113057

Bush is simply making America safe for people like himself, his friends, and the oil companies. I don’t think he has that much interest in Iraq beyond getting rid of S.H.
Bush went into that classroom to read My Pet Goat after he knew a plane had hit the WTC. Cheney was issuing orders to the military on 9/11. Bush obviously had no recollection of its significance or the previous history of attacks and threats.
I say impeach Bush and make Cheney the actual president, maybe he’ll drop dead from a heart attack and Hastert could succeed him. I’ve never really heard anything that bad about Hastert.

Please excuse the double post, it’s the system, not me.

Posted by: ray at January 13, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #113101

For all of the claims of the expanding economy
most American’s have geat difficulty believing anything positive about the present economy and justifiably question it’s existence.

If you’re in the top 10% of income the economy is surging. The next 10% it is moving. The remaining 80% is either struggling to keep their head above water or are sliding below the economic surface with increasing speed as their income level drops.

Like most everything else in the Bush Adminstration the greatly improved economy for the large majority of people is at best a misrepresentation and for most an outright lie.

Posted by: Richard at January 14, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #113111

Walkerer al.

Nice piece but what I think should really be done here (and would be a terrific protest I may add) would be for every single Liberal shareholder of General Electric to refuse to cash their dividend checks in protest of the president’s policies.

Surely one one or two liberals hold stock in one of the world’s most widely held companies,so I suggest that those liberal shareholders be contacted and asked not to cash that quarterly dividend check.

I heard that even liberal retirees MIGHT have some GE stock,and I THINK that some of them MIGHT(I haven’t fully checked this out yet)have other stock from those other pig mega corporations.

Anyway,I am coordinating the whole thing,so when you do get the names of those renegade liberals,ask them to endorse their dividend checks to me…The mighty Sicilian Eagle,and I will personally see to it that this blood money will never ever be spent on an unjust cause.

Ok?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at January 14, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #113150

can I have some comments on whether our economy is doing well on its own or whether or not it is because of deficit spending.

Posted by: ec at January 14, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #113181

Mr Eagle,

Why only liberals? Should not conservatives be just as concerned about immoral behavior of corporations? I thought ‘moral values’ was the battle cry on the right.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at January 14, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #113188

Dave:

Thanks for the audio link to NPR featuring David Wessell. Interesting thing though—Wessell only talked about one of the issues that you commented on above, and you mischaracterized his comments in your post:

Of course there’s Inflation, a bursting housing bubble, uncontrolled deficit spending, a jobless recovery (68% of employable people are employed, median wages are dropping).

Wessel spoke only about median wages, but gave no real information on them. As far as the housing bubble, he said he won’t be surprised if the “bubble” bursts. You ‘chickenlittled’ that comment by describing a “bursting housing bubble” as if its already in process, which it isnt. I expect it to happen, but it aint happening just yet.

You have yet to provide an basis for the comment that ” a jobless recovery (68% of employable people are employed” is where we are at. I don’t buy your numbers, considering that unemployment is uncharacteristically low. When Clinton was President and had similar low unemployment numbers (using the same formulas as today, by the way), Democrats trumpeted how wonderful the numbers were. The only difference in Clinton’s numbers and Bush’s numbers is the party of the President.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 14, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #113224

Walker

As you may know or not know,I have engaged in spirited debate with many on this side these last several months…some…such as Steve Daughtery and Americian Pundit are brilliant intellectuals whose work I enjoy reading and responding to.

However usually we never agree and with other posters on this side it’s down right nasty.

More than once I have been skewered,and more than once I have skewered.

Really now…corporate America transends politics.

The left,middle,and right have been bought off virtually from the inception of this country.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely,no?

No matter what the originial intention of the newly elected politician who goes to Washington,with virtually no exception to the rule…at some time in their careers they are bought…in some way shape and manner,that is.

However corrupt you may think Delay or any other Republician is…during any Administration where a Democrat was in power the same cane be said.

Patricians versus plebians.

Money.

When it talks loudly to some ,it intoxicates.

The point,however that I was making earlier is that corporate America is really you and I.

All we care about(most that is) is our portfolio,our 401K,our pension plan and we (not all but most) don’t care who,what where it comes from as long as it comes.

Thus,we are in a certain sense, unindicted co-conspiritors,as they say.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 14, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #113248

sicilianeagle,

I agree. The entire political system is corrupted by money. Our dear friends in the middle - the Independents - would become corrupted if they ever got real power because they will not get real power without selling out. That is why we need public funding of elections. Right now however, it appears clear that the Republicans have become drunk with power and have become even more corrupt than the norm.

In the normal course of politics any candidate has to have money in order to get elected. In order to get that money he/she will have to appeal to special interest. I believe that the Democrats have an advantage in this regard. I believe that many of the special interest groups that they have available to appeal to are more in alignment with “democratic values and ideals”. For example, the Democrats can appeal to labor unions like the UAW. Of course the UAW is far from perfect, and it has its own special interest, but it has a proud tradition of fighting for empowerment, dignity, and justice for the common man and for the disenfranchised. These proud and noble liberal values of the UAW are in close alignment with the values of the Democrats, so the Democrats do not have to prostitute themselves so bad in order to get that money. The Democrats can also appeal to special interest groups like the N.A.C.P., A.A.R.P., and others with similar proud liberal traditions. Then of course, the Democrats must also sell out to big business to certain extent, but they at least have the ability to retain some independence and to stand up somewhat for their true ideals.

Conservatism is also a proud and noble political tradition in this country. It is true that their is some sincere alignment between the traditional values of conservatives and the the special interest of big business like the mining industry, the oil industry, the auto industry, the lumber industry, agribusiness and so on. However, the sincere alignments between conservatives / Republicans and big business are not as close as the sincere alignments between liberal interest groups and the Democrats. For example, conservatives naturally believe in conservation but that brings them into direct conflict with big business. There are some conservative interest groups that support Republicans like “right to life organisations”, but for the most part, Republicans have to turn big business. Big business only has one simple value and it has a picture of George Washington on it, so the Republicans have to prostitute themselves even more than the Democrats. That is why we need public funding of elections… so that Republicans can return to their noble traditions, Democrats can return to their noble traditions, and Independents can have a chance.

First, we must join together; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to defeat the “Unitary Executive” which threatens to subvert the American system of co-equal branches of government and of checks and balances and which could eventually lead to a police state that spies on its own citizens.

Bush says that we should give him the benefit of the doubt - that we should trust him - that he is only spying on us for our own good. But Bush admits that he told us a bald faced lie - so tell me - why should we trust an admitted bald faced liar?

Posted by: Ray G. at January 14, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #113250

Those who both agree and disagree with this posting seem to lack an ability to really understand those who think differently. What is true does not need to be proved. It stands on its own, and the rest is an exercise in illusionary thinking. Some people like to say, “well, this is MY truth,” and as long as it doesn’t involve making others wrong, it likely is truth. Getting involved with right and wrong is totally pointless when it comes to truth. When invested in being right, there is no room for understanding the underlying truth of the other, which might be as simple as “I am in a lot of pain, and I am using words to try and avoid it” or show it, or make sense of it.

How much more satisfying could blogging be if used to generate real understanding? Isn’t that your secret hope when you send a blog— to be understood?

Posted by: JDB at January 14, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #113252

P.S. to my last post:

I forgot to mention that www.worldcantwait.org is organising protests for January 31 and February 4 to demand that Bush resign. Of course, if Bush and his hunchback henchman Cheney are ever forced to resign, it is likely that McCain will be nominated and confirmed as interim President, which would almost certainly mean 8 more years of a Republican President. At least it would be an honest, honorable, patriotic Republican Pesident and that would be OK. Republicans must join us to push the Unitary Executive from power.

Posted by: Ray G. at January 14, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #113260
Of course, if Bush and his hunchback henchman Cheney are ever forced to resign, it is likely that McCain will be nominated and confirmed as interim President, which would almost certainly mean 8 more years of a Republican President.
I don’t think presidential succession works this way… However, I would gladly take eight years of McCain if it meant three fewer years of Bush and his lying incompetence. I can at least believe that McCain will try to act for the good of the entire country, rather than just for his own private agenda.
Posted by: Charles Wager at January 14, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #113277

Charles Wager,

If Bush and Cheney ever did resign, presidential succession would have to happen in fashion similar to when President Ford came to power. That situation was very similar to this one in that both President and Vice-President were corrupt. Of course there is no way to determine who Bush would actually nominate, but McCain is pretty good guess. The point that I am making is that Republicans would also benefit politically from driving this bald faced lying corrupt spying Unitary Executive from power. Their primary motivation needs to be to save our check and balanced Constitutional Democracy, but they would profit politically and that is OK. We need to save our Democracy. It is profoundly threatened at this point in time… Bush spying on Americans without checks, balances, Congressional or Judicial oversight… Bush claiming the absolute powers of the Unitary Executive… Bush packing the supreme court with with an extremist judge like Alito who is an author of the theory of the Unitary Executive… Bush bald faced lying about warrant-less wiretaps… This is dangerous stuff and Republicans need to join us now in order to drive Bush out of power… because if Bush does not lead us into an all out police state, then the next President who inherits those absolute powers might… Do Republicans actually want to trust Hillary with absolute power? I am a Democrat and I don’t want to trust her with absolute power. We need to restore Constitutional Democracy in America and we need to do it now!!! We can’t wait… Go to worldcantwait.org. Join the protest.

Posted by: Ray G. at January 14, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #113281

Ray G,

Agreed. If the GOP could muster the integrity to take such action, I could actually begin to have some respect for the Republican party. It would probably be the best thing they could do maintain the grasp on power; I would be forced to give them my full support even though I don’t like the idea of a single party maintaining control over the entire government.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 14, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #113340

Nice post, Walker. I’m a sarcasm afficianado — which is why I also really like Aldous.

You are right that President Bush has been pretty consistent with his agenda and Jack is right that it shouldn’t be a surprise.

I guess the only surprise for me is the degree to which Bush took tax cuts, corporate welfare, and strengthening the executive branch. Oh. And the misleading, the half-truths, and the shadowy secrecy with which he goes about it.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 15, 2006 6:36 AM
Comment #113376

Will all you folks who keep harping on the presumed fact that there have been no attacks here since 9/11 please tell me how many attaks there were here BEFORE 9/11?

L

Posted by: legaleagle at January 15, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #113396

Legaleagle

Hey we related?…we have the same last name.

To answer you question:

One was enough…just like Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 15, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #113419

AP:

You are right that President Bush has been pretty consistent with his agenda and Jack is right that it shouldn’t be a surprise.

I guess the only surprise for me is the degree to which Bush took tax cuts, corporate welfare, and strengthening the executive branch. Oh. And the misleading, the half-truths, and the shadowy secrecy with which he goes about it.

You first say that Bush has been consistent in his agenda and that his actions come as no surprise. Then you go on to say how he has been misleading, secretive and half-truthful. If he’s been consistent, then he couldn’t have been misleading.

Sounds like you are just taking both sides of the argument. Its a good thing to take if you don;t want to be wrong, but you’ll never be right either.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 15, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #113527
If he’s been consistent, then he couldn’t have been misleading.

JBOD, I guess I wasn’t clear enough for you. I was referring to the extent of pushing his agenda — far beyond what he’s publicly said he’d do.

For example, we knew he’d cut taxes, but he vowed to also set aside a trillion dollars of Clinton’s budget surplus for Social Security. Guess which one got done at the expense of the other. Surprised that he cut taxes? Of course not. But I am surprised he tried to actually gut SS — and he did it with misleading statements about SS bankruptcy and the costs of his “plan”.

I hope that clears things up for you, JBOD.

And just on a philisophical note, when something someone says doesn’t make sense to me, I usually assume it’s because I’m missing a piece of info. So I ask for clarification. That works better for me than just automatically thinking a fellow American is an idiot. It’s called respect. It works for me.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 16, 2006 4:47 AM
Comment #113562

AP:

If your feelings are hurt, my apologies. I did not do anything close to calling you an idiot. In fact, I felt like I showed where I saw discrepancy in your comments, focused on them, and recognized that Watchblog offers you the ability to clarify them. In short, that counts as a discussion.

Re SS: I’m for personal savings account, but I too was concerned as to where the shortfall would come from. There’s a time lag before personal accounts would help, and that time lag has a cost to it. I never saw where the money was going to come from adequately.

Lastly, if someone is an idiot, I don’t particularly care what their nationality is. There are idiots of all kinds and colors. You are not one of them, though.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 16, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #113638

please tell me how many attacks there were here BEFORE 9/11
For the sake of historical accuracy, there was a terrorist attack on Feb. 26, 1993 at the World Trade Center, about a month after William Jefferson Clinton became president, and 8 years before the 9/11/2001 attacks. Six people were killed and almost a 1000 injured in an attempt to take down one of the two towers.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 16, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #113766

>>For the sake of historical accuracy, there was a terrorist attack on Feb. 26, 1993 at the World Trade Center, about a month after William Jefferson Clinton became president, and 8 years before the 9/11/2001 attacks. Six people were killed and almost a 1000 injured in an attempt to take down one of the two towers.

ray & legaleagle,

Other than the McVey thingee. But, to the point…if it took eight years between terror attacks, won’t it be 2009 before we can brag about there being no terror attacks on America since Dubbya killed our Constitution?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #114004
If your feelings are hurt, my apologies.

I have a very thick skin, JBOD. But thanks. I was just a little ticked off that recently a couple people have quoted me out of context. For whatever reason, one person even decided I was a Muslim terrorist. I was just annoyed. Sorry back at ya.

As for SS, I’m not rigidly opposed to private retirement accounts — I have a couple myself — but, like you, I didn’t think we could afford it. I also saw all the studies that say accounts by themselves don’t do anything — ever — to lower SS costs.

But most importantly, I just don’t believe it’s necessary. The administration’s dire predictions are based on worst case scenarios, and the projected date of SS’s demise gets pushed back further and further every year.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #114323

AP:

I saw you compared to a Muslim terrorist, and I think I even defended you on that one. There are wildly inaccurate statements thrown out all over the place—-that one was one of the more ludicrous conclusion leaps though.

I think SS is in trouble eventually. Most reports indicate that it will require change—perhaps changing the age etc. The idea of private accounts helps in creating a larger benefit for the individual, which makes them less reliant on the non-private amount.

At some point, we will need to face the fact that with people living longer, the amount of money going into SS will not allow for the payout that people are currently getting. We need to solve the problem before its staring us down in the mirror—-I don’t know exactly when that will be, but I hope our govt doesnt wait until its an emergency fix.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 18, 2006 12:45 PM
Post a comment