Democrats & Liberals Archives

Is Government the Problem?

Ronald Reagan famously said that government is not the solution, it is the problem. Since then, his theory has swept through the Republican Party. But not until today, when all three branches are controlled by Republicans, and all aspects of government, both domestic and foreign-related, are in one catastrophic mess, were the Republicans able to prove it.

The Bush administration and the other Republicans in power have demonstrated that government is the problem to a rare degree. Before 9/11, they disregarded messages that warned of the type of attack that occurred on 9/11. After that, though they scared us to death with color codes, they invaded Iraq and converted it into a fiery caldron where Shi-ites and Sunnis are assassinating each other and American soldiers are suffering and dying. Lately they are protecting us by asking us to throw away rouge, lipstick and toothpaste! Don't bring your dangerous laptop on the plane and you will be safe!

The biggest proof of all that government is not the solution but the problem, is Katrina. What a pretty name for such a horrible event. During the 4 years between 9/11 and Katrina, Bush dismantled the recently renewed, reorganized and restrengthened FEMA and placed "Heckuva job Brownie" in charge. When Katrina struck, all of us - except for our dear leader - saw the misery endured by those who were poor. All "owners" of the "ownership society" were able to get into their cars and "evacuate." FEMA had no idea what to do with the "non-owners."

A week later Bush made his Washington Square speech promising help to New Orleans. A year later, New Orleaners are still waiting. Here's a short summary of the current dire situation:

  • Less than half of the city’s pre-storm population of 460,000 has returned, putting the population at roughly what it was in 1880.

  • Nearly a third of the trash has yet to be picked up.

  • Sixty percent of homes still lack electricity.

  • Seventeen percent of the buses are operational.

  • Half of the physicians have left, and there is a shortage of 1,000 nurses.

  • Six of the nine hospitals remain closed.

  • Sixty-six percent of public schools have reopened.

  • A 40 percent hike in rental rates, disproportionately affecting black and low-income families.

  • A 300 percent increase in the suicide rate
Of the $110 billion Congress voted for, only about $44 billion have been spent. And, the head of the Corps of Engineers says that he does not think that the levees can withstand a hurricane with a heavy storm surge.

There's plenty more. But isn't this more than enough proof that government is the problem?

Yes, indeed, government is the problem - when the government is run by Republicans. Republicans think that the government can't do anything right; why trust them with an important function like security? Republicans think everything should be privatized; how can you privatize catastrophe prevention and humanitarian aid? Republicans tell us that each of us should use his or her own initiative and not depend on others; how on earth can you build a safe and secure society this way?

If you seek national security, you need to have people in charge who believe in government: Democrats. If you realize that government functions that are helpful to many, especially poor, people should not be privatized, you need representatives that agree with you: Democrats. If you believe, that in time of danger, we must all work together as a community, pick candidates that are of the same mind: Democrats.

Definitely, government is the problem when government is run by Republicans. However, government is the solution when run by Democrats. If you want a government that builds real security for all its citizens, throw the Republicans out in November and replace them with Democrats.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 28, 2006 5:48 PM
Comments
Comment #177898

Two necessary parts of this argument: 1) defending the Democratic programs that Republicans think are wasteful or ineffective and 2) explaining why a domesticaly interventionist government is preferable to a non-interventionist one.

Posted by: Trent at August 28, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #177902

Government is the problem…be it republican or democrat. They’re all corporate whores & slaves of the lobbyists.

Vote REPUBLICRAT!
like you really have a choice…

Posted by: KerouacZac at August 28, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #177904

Paul
All I see from Democrats is a lot of finger pointing, but no solutions. Me personally, I think we should get rid of 1oo senators and 400 plus congressmen and one president and start all over. Both parties are to blame. We cannot continue to blame one when both are corrupt. Like d.a.n. don’t vote for incumbents

Posted by: KAP at August 28, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #177905

Ha, ha, ha. In order to defend an incompetent administration that they have helped to put in place, the right wing response to criticism is that helping during a disaster is “interventionist government.” I see y’all got the playbook and are using it loyally. The only problem is that FEMA was set up to do such interventions, they have been very successful in the past (when competent leadership was in place), and without such intervention we have the spectacle of a major US city looking like a 3rd world dump. But then, you guys have no shame. You need to pump your ideology regardless of the consequences and you have a high-school need to look smart all the time, so no admission of guilt or error is possible. Just like your fearless leader, the incompetent boob who is responsible for the mess in NO, the mess in Iraq, and the mess of the economy.

It doesn’t really matter, because the voters are waking up to your shenanigans, and the only way the conservatives can hold on to their power is if they can fix the elections again. It’s gonna take a much bigger swing than 200,000 votes or so this time, so dust off those Diebold hacks and those inaccurate felon lists, start misallocating those voting machines, and rejecting those registration froms and absentee ballots. I figure you’ll need to erase or swing about 2 million votes this time.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 28, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #177907

I think the 300% increase in suicide rate should be higher.

By Nagin acting as a classic indecision specialist and delaying his call & proper management for evacuation (far from a federal responsibility) and then thousands and thousands of people choosing to ignore evacuation calls for a CAT V Hurricane (reduced to a CAT IV just prior to landfall), there was a combination of involuntary manslaughter on Nagin’s part and voluntary suicide of those who foolishly remained behind.

While an infinitesimal few did not have the physical capacity or support to evacuate, the vast majority did. So despite Nagin’s thoughtless mishandling of the bus drivers & bus evacuations, nearly all of those survivors could’ve walked out of town if they needed to. They chose not to, they committed suicide, so raise that 300% rate appropriately!

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 28, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #177909

Um, MW, I’m not right-wing.

Posted by: Trent at August 28, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #177910

Willie, Bush IS the problem. So far he has caused the death of almost as many Americans as 9/11, the death ot more Iraquis than Sadam ever thought of killing, the loss of a large budget surplus and the loss of more freedoms than even Ben Lauden could have imagined. What have we got to show for it? Safety? World respect? Prosperity for all? Less terrorist?

I never thought I’d see the day when America would sponcer torture, secret prisions and domestic spying.

If all this sounds good to you, You just might like Bush.

I
R emember
A nother
Q uagmire

Posted by: Gedunk at August 28, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #177913

And by the way Paul,

You lose a ton of credibility if you think that the current government is the first time that recent (or ancient) US governments have had reason for scrutiny.

“Everything was great until we had this Republican White House and Congress!” is such a foolish & ignorant statement we could spend more time picking apart that statement than city, state, & federal errors regarding Katrina.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 28, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #177916

No, Willie, because it is still a problem.

OBTW just where are all of our National Guard and Reservist when we need them?

Why they are trying to contain an CIVIL WAR in IRAQ.

Posted by: Gedunk at August 28, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #177918

For those looking to excuse the Bush regime over Katrina response: A hundred years ago after the San Francisco earthquake there was a massive federal response within 24 hours. This was without the use of modern communications, or aircraft. You can not excuse the unexcusable. You can try to blame anyone you want too,even the victums but no one is listening. Failure is failure and will show in November.

Posted by: BillS at August 28, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #177920

Yes, government is half of the problem, and the voters that keep re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians, is the other half of the problem.

And, if there is no civil war in Iraq, then what the [explicative] would you call it ? !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #177921

Willie, Helping Americans clean up and rebuild is an infanitely more useful thing for them to do than getting them killed trying to break up the CIVIL WAR in IRAQ.

Posted by: Gedunk at August 28, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #177922

Weary Willie is right,

Katrina is old news. Its not like there are still homeless people a year later or anything. Besides, what do we care about domestic issues?

After all, Iraq is the only place in the world that had a violent dictator, and it is a fact that killing insurgents there means NEVER having to fight any ever again. So once we can go on TV and say “mission accomplished” then the world will be a more democratic, and thus a safer place.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #177924

People haven’t moved back to New Orleans because there are no jobs and the people who suffered through Katrina aren’t completely stupid. It’s still below sea level, it will happen again. It is the same reason Galveston never recovered from the 1900 storm and Houston became the major hub and port in Texas. Having said that, Floridians are so stupid they voted for Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and still live in a swamp. Texans used to have brains, then they elected George.

Posted by: gergle at August 28, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #177928

What is the “exit strategy” for the war on poverty? Can we ever win that war? NO, LA is a dem city in a dem county in a dem state. What a mess it is—and always has been.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 28, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #177930
Definitely, government is the problem when government is run by Republicans. However, government is the solution when run by Democrats.

That message is a total crock of [explicative].
That message helps prolong the problem.
That message demonstrates the extremely powerful and seductive nature of the petty partisan warfare, and it is exactly what politicians (on both sides) want, because it divides and distracts the voters, and helps to prevent a majority of voters to form to vote out irresponsible incumbent politicians from them from their cu$hy, coveted seats of power. Especially when incumbent politicians have stacked the deck .

That petty partisan warfare requires a focal point (a detractor) and that favorite detractor these days is petty partisan warfare. In the past, other detractors have been used (e.g. race, religion, gender, class, profession, wealth, etc.). These are becoming less popular, but the religion detractor is one of the most dangerous.

But, no matter what the detractor is, it aims to create a circular pattern of thought and behavior to divide the voters, to detract (i.e. distract) from more substantive issues (that are usually being neglected or ignored by irresponsible incumbent politicians), and keep the seduced voters from ever realizing that they are being manipulated. It is VERY powerful. The two main parties simply take turns, and re-election rates are extremely high.

So, reject the petty partisan warfare manipulations.
It isn’t hard to see the partisan motivated arguments.
Ignorance is not an excuse.
They give themselves away by cherry-picking facts to suit their argument, while cleverly ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the numerous things both parties are guilty of. The dead-give-away should be the mindless debate over which party is the most corrupt.

So, learn to identify the tactics.
Don’t let them control you.
Don’t let them divide you.
Don’t let them seduce you into the circular pattern.
Don’t let them trick you with truths mixed with half-truths.
Don’t let them confuse you by clouding the issues and non-sequiturs.
Don’t let them bribe you with the voters’ own money.
Don’t let them get away with it. Hold them accountable.
Otherwise, we will (most likely) suffer the consequences .

We have tried:

  • this party

  • and that party

  • conservatives, moderates, liberals, neocons, Republocrats, Demopubs, DINOs, RINOs, etc, etc, etc.

  • wallowing in the partisan warfare

  • power and corruption of one party control (and we have forgotten transparency and accountability)

  • living at the expense of everyone else (while complaining about the danger of the growing deficits and National Debt)

  • reducing waste and pork-barrel (but keep voting for those that bring the pork home, and bribe voters with the voters’ own money)

  • asking government to provide for us from cradle to grave (but complain that bloated government meddles too much in our lives, and continues to grow to nightmare proportions)

So, after we have tried everything else, why not, finally, try the one simple, logical, common-sense, no-brainer, safe, peaceful, non-partisan, fair, patriotic, inexpensive, honest, ethical, and responsible thing voters were supposed to do all along?

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-For, Incumbent Politicians !

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #177933

“What is the “exit strategy” for the war on poverty?”

Stop funding it. Check.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #177935

“You couldn’t possibly even comprehend that they may be reversing an error in thought that has dominated an area of the world for many hundreds of years.”

What “error” would that be? And please don’t say not accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savoir.

“I don’t think second guessing a long term solution with short term details is a way to go about it.”

Since when was this a long term war? I remember specifically Bush and Rummy telling us it would be quick…we’d be liberators. Of course, we were also looking for WMD’s too. Did you read some secret newspaper that said otherwise? If so, which one? The SoothSayer Chronicle? And I don’t think the violence and unrest in Iraq are “short term details”. In fact, I think we are making them more a part of the perminent culture the longer we stay. Any EVIDENCE to refute that??

“Their history is to attack us and eliminate us”

Really? What war was that? And who is “they”?

I call “Bullshit”.

“They think they are better than us and look at what we do”

How is it people like you know exactly how they feel and what they think, yet you can’t tell us where they hide?

“We bicker and quibble and feel sorry for ourselves and waste alot of time just second guessing.”

That’s usually what people do when they care about something.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #177938

Who is “you guys”?

By the way, I’m a conservative libertarian. I just can’t stand ignorance beit from any side. This is why I’m challenging you to show any logic behind your posts. You, like the rest, refuse to do so.

Its ok…par for the course. My expectations are negative…and resultingly well satisfied.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #177941

Weary Willie,
Maybe.
There also may be an 80 year cycle?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #177945

Paul,

I’m sorry where is the list of horrible things that the federal government is responsible for taking care of. When did the state of Louisana and the city of NO abdicate all of their responsibility to their people.

Why is it the responsibity of the fed to remove the debris, control rents, make the busses run, hire doctors, run hospitals etc.

Was New Orleans under control of the Fed before Katrina?

Look at the rest of the Gulf Coast MS is taking care of the debris on their own. They are just doing what needs to be done, not whining. Why is it that when the subject of Katrina comes up only NO is mentioned.

I can see the case for the federal government to take care of temporary humanitarian aid, but why is it OUR responsibilty to move people back to NO. One of the beauties of our country is you can live wherever you want. But, along with that comes consequences. If you live along a river it may run over it’s banks. If you live along a fault line there may be an earthquake. If you live in a trailer park there may be a tornado.

Posted by: Keith at August 28, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #177947

“Katrina is being used again as a club to beat another republican president into submittion”

I think millions of Katrina victims would say rightfully so. And what’s with the word “another”?

“It is said that the President is “grabbing Power”. I submit that the President is only holding on to the power granted his position in the constitution.”

Ah yes, the shining ignorance. Google the “Unitary Executive Theory” and then ask yourself: “Is this constitutional? Is this what the framers envisioned?” If you have any brain at all, the answer is CLEARLY “no”. But yet every piece of legislation goes through Cheney’s office first looking for and weakening through signing statements any language contrary to that theory.

And I’d say holding the purse strings is an aweful big part of conducting any war. And yes, that DOES carry influence.

“The only alternative is to support, not just the troops, support the President. He is one of the troops, ya know”

OK…now the brainwashing begins. Once again, I’m calling bullshit (you’re favorite game apparently, although you’re not very good at it). There are other alternatives…lots of them. And no, Bush is not a soldier…never was…never will be. Nice try, but you’ll have to show me some actual combat experience before I buy that crap.

So Willy, have you made one point yet today that wasn’t VERY easily dispensed with?

No. But I’m sure the baseless nonsense will keep coming.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #177949

You honestly can’t think of ONE alternative to giving whatever Bush says your full support???

WOW. Very telling.

I think its YOUR turn to START providing ANY evidence for ANYTHING you said. You won’t though, as I’ve already asked several times. I take it you can’t. Again, very telling.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #177951

There are definitely cycles, but each cycle is a little different than any before it. It certainly keeps things interesting. Unfortunately, we (the U.S.) are not in one of the best cycles.

Kevin23 wrote: Check …
Weary Willie wrote: and, Mate.
Speaking of chess, anyone interested in a game of chess (my favorite game)?

You can invite me to a free game (online) … my username is summars (create your own username if you like; it’s free; invite any user to a game. I’ll warn you though, I’ve only lost 1 of the last 96 games in the last 38 months. : )

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #177952

Weary Willie,

FDR was between a rock and a hard place. He pacified the people with government programs. He started the dependency on government.

In my opinion, I think Truman was OK. Not charismatic, but logical and balanced.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #177953

Willie, There is nothing minutia about what Bushco has done TO our country.

He is as phony a military man as he is as a statesman.

Can you say “Mission Acomplished”?

Posted by: Gedunk at August 28, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #177954

One of America’s golden ages was World War II and afterward. Not perfect by any stretch, but one of those 2 steps forward (among the 1.999 steps backward). But, we really have lost our way. People are pathetically dependent on government. They want someone to take care of them from cradle to grave. It is sickening. And politicians are selling us all out, but we keep re-electing them! Duh!

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #177957

Bush is a man of pride.
Pride is a sin.
He can not admit his vast mistakes.

Pride can definitely cause probelms. That may be Bush’s problem now. The solution to that problem requires humility. As we saw in the debate, and since, Bush may have too much pride to admit any mistakes. But, it is understandable. It is very hard to admit that you may be responsible for 2600 dead American troops, no WMD, poor planning, ignored warnings of hijacked airliners, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens (and climbing). Yes, very, very hard indeed.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #177960

Didn’t surprise me at all.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #177962

They already tried to blow it up in 1993.
Government ignored warnings.
Our government is incompetent.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #177965

Willy-

In your last post you just relegated the US to several generations worth of fighting an invisible and ever-evolving enemy. I really would like to know why you think this is a foregone conclusion. Obviously those who are waging this war do not believe what you claim…that this is the start of a 100 year global war. If you are advocating we become the world police force, then I’m advocating that you not tax me to pay for it, and I’ll bet I’ve got 80-90% (if not 100%) of America behind me. Good luck getting that one through the appropriations committee. And you realize that being a police force to the world is not a role that has any end. I think you are VERY egocentric for even considering that the world would even want us to play that role. And on the backs of the US taxpayers? And then, what do we win? A world without terror? If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #177966

… because we are incompetent.

It’s not just government.
We keep re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #177967

The problem is not caused by one party or the other, or by the existence of government. the problem is one of institutionalization. Get totally new blood in there who can solve problems in an intelligent fashion, unhindered by the status quo.

Posted by: sparkman at August 28, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #177968

Kevin23,
Hmmmmm m m m … … seems like the U.S. has already been trying to be the world police.

My recommendation is to stop doing that, and concentrate on defenses. Rebuilding Iraq is not helping us … especially not as they descend into civil war.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #177969
Get totally new blood in there who can solve problems in an intelligent fashion, unhindered by the status quo.

Exactly.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #177975

Willy-

Again…Who the hell is “you guys”?

And what WAS that last post about? All I could decipher was Reagan (jelly bean - luckily I’ve visited the jelly belly factory a few times where they have his picture up, otherwise I’d be lost) winning the cold war…and all by himself apparently.

But there was no point. Unless your last line means that all I have to do to end a debate with you is ask you “How do you know?” Of course, I basically figured that out already.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #177976

So, without income tax (which wasn’t the issue at all by the way), how exactly are you planning on paying for this indefinate international police force?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #177977

Paul,

Good article!

If you’ve not already seen it, please take a look at this CSMonitor peice:

Numbers show a second-rate US
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0828/p17s02-cogn.html

I quote: “In terms of the percent of its population living at or below the poverty line, for instance, the US ranks worst among 16 wealthy countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study. That study found that 17 percent of Americans are poor. As for child poverty, the US also sits on the bottom, with 21.9 percent.”

“On Tuesday, the US Census Bureau is scheduled to release data indicating whether poverty last year increased for the fifth year in a row. The official US poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent - that’s 37 million Americans.”

Not numbers I’m proud of.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 28, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #177981

“And that point is to continually say the U.S. is wrong until the democrat is in power again.”

haha. Talking to yourself? No one said that.

And the founding fathers envisioned a lot of things, but they had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Dems v. Repubs. It was more about federalism and checks & balances. You ever read the federist papers?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #177983

of course the federist papers didn’t exist. How about the Federalist Papers?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #177985

Anytime you need your butt perverbally kicked via the written word Willy, I’ll be here.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #177987

Let me join with Kansas Dem in saying, great post, Paul!

Weary:
“That someone was the government FDR great society propaganda bull crap.”

Complete ignorance. The Great Society Programs were LBJ. The New Deal was FDR. No propaganda involved at all. People were without jobs and standing on breadlines so they didn’t drop dead.

d.a.n.:
“FDR was between a rock and a hard place. He pacified the people with government programs. He started the dependency on government.”

Bullsh*t!!! Roosevelt SAVED our country. He did what needed doing in our darkest hour — and he did it brilliantly and with amazing competence. Have any of you ever read ‘Hard Times’ by Studs Terkel? If not, you should. Indeed, it should be required reading for anyone who didn’t live through the Great Depression, and especially for anybody who thinks they have the right to shoot their mouths off about FDR when they really don’t know squat.
Social Security is 71 years old — the most successful government program ever created. Before we all began paying into it, a vast number of people in this country lived lives of zero dignity, stark, unremitting poverty and needless death. Before it was enacted, the poverty rate among old people was over fifty percent. Disabled people without families were abused, pathetically reviled beggars on the streets of America. Widows and orphans starved and begged as well. Daily life in this country was a complete Hellhole for far too many of our citizens. FDR (thanks to having his conscience continually prodded by his wife, Eleanor), saw to it that all that would change. If the Republicans with their shriveled, dried up hearts of stone have their way with getting rid of it, that is what America can look forward to in the future. And how f*cking ironic that they attack it while simultaneously mouthing empty words about “Christianity”, “morality” and “family values.”
Shame on them. Shame on anyone who says the word “dependency on government” like it’s a curse in the richest country in the entire world.

“One of America’s golden ages was World War II and afterward.”

Yeah, and all of it thanks to FDR.
If it had been a Republican in the Whitehouse during those years, we’d surely have been up Sh*ts Creek without a paddle.
Much like we are now, with Bush at the helm of our government like a modern-day clueless Herbert Hoover and secretive and dishonest Richard Nixon all rolled into one.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 28, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #177995

Paul-

Despite the Bush administrations glaring exception with their Katrina response, I submit that the government that governs least governs best on issues of contraversy. Their is no contraversy surrounding emergency responses. We all want them, and we want them fast. When I was an apprentice to a general contractor years ago I was tought that their are 3 things that everybody wants. They want it done fast, they want it done well, and they want it done cheap.

Problem is, you can only have 2. Any combination, but only 2. I also think it is fairly obvious that we’ll sacrifice cost for fast quality services in emergencies.

Most local governments have also come to this conclusion independently. They pay and train first responders well. The better they do this, the better the quality of life in general. There is a very high correlation.

In Katrina, it is unexcusable that no one got it right for a week. The locals did better than the state, who did better than the feds. Business as usual. We need for WHOEVER comes into office to be asked tough questions like: what does “person x” do? Who is responsable for “x”? How does “process x” work? Who decides when …? Etc.

It is quality of leadership to start, but then it comes down to, can we fix this? If not, tear down and start again. If in doubt as to what to do (not in a Bush “decider” way, but in a “everyone agrees” kind of way) then leave it to the locals. Collect tax money for block grants if you want some element of control…federal judges will be creative (they always are) about how to punish those who don’t comply with federal laws.

I just really dislike the idea that democrats keep putting forward about federal involvement being the biggest factor in NO’s demise. Everyone screwed up. But feds have a dept for it. So people look to them. Makes simple sense right?

Big government is only good if their is BIG unrest and you need a BIG security blanket in order to sleep at night.

DAN-

Sorry, but I haven’t played chess in months. And I get the impression you’ve got some ruskie in you, and them folks take their chess WAY too seriously. Maybe some head to head sudoku?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 28, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #177996

It seems to me most of the discussion thus far are more about proving who is most right, (as in correct) rather than the issues. These are very real, serious issues. I for one, am so fed up with what is going on in our Country, and want my Country back! Back to when there was civility between people, parties, depts., and more.
It is way past time to get us out of a no-win war situation in Iraq - something I opposed from the start. How many more people must die, to prove nothing? We seem to have gotten locked into a no-win situation in the entire middle east, and we need to find a graceful way out. Who ever promoted the U.S.A as “God”? This administration seems to believe they are… Look at the mess(es) we have been put in, confronted with, and remain unresolved, unsettled, unpaid for. In all my years I have not seen such a wasteful spending spree of ANY previous Administration. And, it nearly brings tears to my eyes as I realize my children will still be paying for this mess, long after I am gone.
And, anyone that is willing to defend the positions of this administration with any rationale, is clearly unable to see the honest truth, of failure after failure. We are in such a quagmire in this country - our Democracy itself is being threatened by the misdirected power in play, and we need to come together to change the direction we are going. OR, our National Language may be another language besides english. And, I only mean this as a statement of fact, not politics.

Posted by: RoBerrie at August 28, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #177999

Kevin:
“Big government is only good if their is BIG unrest and you need a BIG security blanket in order to sleep at night.”

That is where New Orleans is right now, Kevin. The crime rate has skyrocketed and the people have nothing. They need the help of our government, just like people needed the help of the government during the Great Depression. In this case, we’re actually lucky it’s only one city, rather than the whole country in dire straits.
But you’re right, we need leadership, and we don’t have ANY. I also agree that block grants might be a good idea. FEMA is for emergencies, but Bush has for some reason put them in charge of trying to house the people who have lost everything. I have no idea why, probably because he’s so bloody stupid and confused. After all, we do have HUD. Why isn’t that agency playing a more active role? And why hasn’t the administration created a Katrina czar? I couldn’t even tell you who is in charge of helping the Gulf Coast recovery when it comes to the federal government. We should be seeing someone come out regularly to inform us of what they are doing, and outlining the future goals they’ll be trying to meet with our taxdollars. But no, nothing of the sort has happened.
Nothing for the people who lost everything and nothing in the way of information for the American taxpayer. Nothing at all from a nothing administration.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #178000

“nearly all of those survivors could’ve walked out of town if they needed to. They chose not to, they committed suicide, so raise that 300% rate appropriately!”

Ken Strong,

First, I agree that the Mayor and the Governor both totally screwed up. There was plenty of blame to go around, but that blame certainly reaches all the way to the White House.

But, all that aside, you actually make it sound like “only the strong will (or should) survive”. From what I saw on TV many of those who were stranded were elderly. I also noticed a lot of young children. Of course there’s also the fact that the vast majority of those at the Superdome were black.

So, national disgrace #1 is that we’ve still failed to properly address racial disparity regarding poverty and education. Now before you get your hackles up, I don’t blame only George Bush or the Republicans for that. The problem existed long before he became president, but OTOH he and the Republicans have done very little or nothing to address the issue. Clinton gets a few points for helping to provide insurance for more disavantaged children but that’s about it.

Now, back to Katrina! We’re talking about a catastrophy of epic proportions! And we weren’t prepared! We were told we were more prepared due to the changes mandated since 9-11 and we weren’t! We were warned, but we still had our heads up our a$$*$! You notice I say “we” rather than “they”, but GW is the numero uno “we”!

I still remember Condi’s grilling by the 9-11 commission about Richard Clarke’s memos, and the CIA memo. What was the answer? Uh, we didn’t know when, or where, or who……..so we did nothing!

Katrina was the second time this administration did nothing, and they knew when, and where, and who! I’m not a mushroom.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #178001

Gergle…

To say that Floridians are “stupid,” implies your own arrogance. Nor did all Floridians vote for George W. Bush.

It is bad enough, what is happening in this country under this administration, without the ignorant bashing among us all. I am a Floridian, a registered voter and did not vote for President Bush, be that as it may.

I believe and support the First Amendment for everyone. But generalities can be offensive and “stupid.”

Posted by: McGlerkin at August 29, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #178005

Adrienne-

“That is where New Orleans is right now, Kevin. The crime rate has skyrocketed and the people have nothing. They need the help of our government, just like people needed the help of the government during the Great Depression.”

I can’t say that I’ve seen or heard much to the contrary. They are in great peril as well because another Hurricane season looms. The feds should become experts at swooping in with food and shelters. They should bring equipment and vehicles to shuttle people with. They should coordinate the locals with their own efforts and keep everyone well informed of the timelines and progress. That’s about it. If they give the locals money, they should audit somehow and make penalties for wasting it. Leave everything else to those on the ground to do what they know how to do, and recruit what they need. They’ll figure it out if they have access to the roads and utilities. The state should have contingency plans, and within days assess a timeline in relation to it.

None of this was done effectively in NO. Very sad. Everyone shares blame. But one image haunts everyone, and that being Bush looking down from AF1 on his way to Crawford. Some leader. Very very sad.

If FEMA and HUD are inneffective, scrap them and let the states “experiment” on the federal dime, so long as someone writes accountability in there somewhere. These things are usually done in formal terms, but not in practical terms. Everyone needs to take the job seriously if they are to succeed under intense circumstances. Even auditors. Feds tend to be 8-5ers. It’s easy to be when you are 1000 miles away.

I can also see the benefit of deciding to go into NO (I think there is overwhelming public support for this) and build something monumental. A great feet of engineering, or a monument…something to revitalize the city and make people proud. More importantly, make people from everywhere want to come take a look.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 29, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #178008

Though the devastation that hit New Orleans was last year’s news, it is rehashed because there are still victims of Katrina who cannot afford to relocate, have nowhere to go, lost everything, etc. Whether they chose to stay (some are from generations of family…still important to some of us today), could not leave but wanted to and were prevented from doing so, is beside the point. The federal government, OUR federal government did not respond in a timely fashion. The president never came to see the devastation, and I’m talking feet on the ground, until nearly 12 days later. And oh, let’s not forget about the wonderful job that FEMA did then or is (not) doing YET today to help these people.

No, the country will miraculously come up with millions if not billions in aid to foreign countries of natural disasters, but our own backyard remains in a state of severe neglect.

People are still angry and in a lot of pain over this ordeal. I tried to put myself in the shoes of even one of those souls. Abandonment came to mind. To be abandoned by your own…even a year later…is not something I can fathom, but saddens me, nonetheless.

I will say that I truly believe that the lack of immediate attention to the people in New Orleans by the President is in part due to the fact that he does not know poverty. He’s seen it, nor experienced it. He comes from wealth and I doubt he’s ever missed a meal or gone without the basic necessities in life. And I believe that is part of the reason for this administration not cleaning up its own backyard and instead investing millions to natural disaster victims in foreign countries. Congress and the Senate are the other reasons for the breakdown in this country. Our government needs to reinvest in the good ole U.S.A. and I do not see that happening.

And don’t even get me started on the war in Iraq. I support our troops, but not the pretense we were fed.

Posted by: McGlerkin at August 29, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #178009

Adrienne,

Excellent posts! Defense of Social Security is no longer just a political debate to me, but actually a matter of my own survival as I’ve been living off Social Security Disability since 2003. Tremors are making it too difficult to explain much but I’d offer a couple of “additions” or “amendments” to your posts:

“If the Republicans with their shriveled, dried up hearts of stone have their way with getting rid of it, that is what America can look forward to in the future.”

Better include the Libertarian party in that. Every Libertarian I’ve spoken with believe’s that ALL such things as Welfare or Social Security should come from family or charity. Of course that only works if we believe that all Americans are now more charitable than they were prior to FDR. Sure, we know that all the big corporations are much more concerned about employee safety and security now. All of the CEO’s and COO’s have been taking pay cuts and reinvesting their incentives to be sure the “little guy” get’s his share, etc…….

“If it had been a Republican in the Whitehouse during those years, we’d surely have been up Sh*ts Creek without a paddle.”

It’s hard to imagine the outcome, but don’t forget that Truman was followed by Eisenhower (R)who very strongly supported Social Security and actually “grew” the program to create more coverage for more Americans. My tremors are too bad to look up any of his quotes but he recognized the continued need and he’d seen first-hand the results of failed society. Even Nixon knew that Social Security was a “win/win”.

I was going to “add” more, but I’m almost out of gas. I’ll just say we’re staring Reaganomics part three straight on right now and the trickle is getting smaller and smaller.

Thanks again!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #178012

KansasDem…

I totally agree with you on the issue of SSDI as this is my sole source of income, also. Remember years ago when funds were needed somewhere (I forget) and Congress stuck it’s meaty hands into the proverbial cookie jar and took millions from the SSDI escrow? They never paid it back (what a surprise). There should have been an upheaval in this country over that business.

My 2 cents worth.

Posted by: McGlerkin at August 29, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #178018

McGlerkin,

The government is still plundering the Social Security trust fund. Certainly some adjustments need to be made to keep the program viable, but it has been the one thing for decades that keeps a “worker” out of the “poor house”.

I was lucky enough to not become disabled until I’d paid in for 36+ years so my benefit is good. Medicare basically pays a “flat-rate” for continuing services such as dialysis, etc. For anyone to think that generousity and charity would take care of this all is just nonsense.

I had a plan. At the time I became disabled I was worth about $180,000.00, I’d been married for 17 years, I thought I had all of my “ducks in a row”, but I was one neurological illness shy of disability. Since my dad died when I was nine years old I’d always been fanatical about insurance. Well, if your “better half” fails to pay just one premium while you’re down you get ZIP!

Thank goodness for SSDI! Without it I’d be an unaffordable burden to my children. Between my two oldest children they are paying more into Social Security than I’m drawing out because they are both “employers”. I say there has been nothing more secure than Social Security since it began and we shouldn’t bankrupt it by taking Soc. Sec. money and putting it in higher risk plans.

Just look at this Part D Medicare crap. I just hit the “doughnut hole”. What now? Before this plan I could get most of my expensive drugs from the manufacturer at a very low cost, most others were covered by my discount card at anywhere from 50/50 to 80/20.

The primary purpose of “part D” was to bankrupt Medicare sooner than later. And it’s working. The Republicans hope to privatize everything which will ultimately leave millions at the mercy of private charity. We’ve been there and done that. It wasn’t pretty.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #178019

“That’s why I’m still insulting you guys.”

Weary Willie,

Although you can’t see it, you’re insulting your own intelligence much more than you’re insulting any of us Dems.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #178022

“How many of you said that at that very instance you saw that second plane hit tower 2.”

I said, “oh shit, and George Bush is President”.

And that’s the truth. Then a couple days later I saw him on TV and he almost broke down, and I thought, “wow, he does have a soul, maybe we’ll be OK”! I’ve not seen his soul again since then.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 2:58 AM
Comment #178024

“You have to start thinking that you and your children are going to fight this war because we have already been fighting it for over thirty years.”

Weary Willie,

Your use of “we” is in itself BS. “We” are not fighting this war. A very small percentage of Americans are “fighting” this war. Rummie’s Pentagon is stretching us to the limit with repetitive deployments, extended deployments, the back door draft, three day R&R’s “in country” for PTSD (aka A&A), etc, etc, etc! Oop’s I forgot to mention the continued deployment of our National Guard in a foreign country which is actually illegal per many state statutes.

WE are also not even paying for this war but rather passing the cost along to future generations by letting countries like China buy up our debt. IMO you might want to look into the cost of learning the Chinese language. Or we can just “nuk-em”, of course they’ll “nuk-us” but we’ll be done with the whole mess anyway, eh?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 3:18 AM
Comment #178028

McGlerkin, sorry, don’t take it personally. I also condemned Texans, of which I am one. It was mostly done tongue in cheek. I had just read a news article on Kathryn Harris’ rejection of separation of church and state and then read the comments on why people aren’t moving back into hurricane prone areas of Louisiana. It made me rattle the marble in my brain pan. I sure hope you don’t go swimming with alligators or live in the Keys. If you do…I’ve got a great lot, with a Gulf view, great fishing, and trailer for sale. Stupidity is evenly distributed among the states.

Posted by: gergle at August 29, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #178032

“Stupidity is evenly distributed among the states.”

Yep, we know there’s been mismanagement of our money through “no-bid” contracts etc. and 40% of us still support Bush. That’s either STUPID or downright dumb. Or, third option, it’s just the GOP way!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 29, 2006 4:15 AM
Comment #178033

I live in Houston, Texas. I moved here in the 70’s for a job. I live on the Northwest side of town. I used to live on the Southwest side. I would not live on the Southeast side of Houston, because of the propensity to serious flooding, and storm surge, should a hurricane come in here. No where is completely safe from flooding here due to the flatness of the terrain. I rode out Alicia when it came through here. It was scary. It was a small hurricane. I said then, I would leave for Dallas if a major sorm came in here. I stayed when Rita threatened but three days before landfall it turned north towards the Texas-Louisiana border, and the freeways were jammed here as people panicked. I was working in Freeport (about 7 miles inland) when it threatened, we evacuated from there 4 days before landfall. I drove the 70 miles from my house to the project daily.

Why do insurance companies insure houses built on the coast? Why does the government subsidize insurance there? I realize people build second homes there, but why should anyone pay for their stupidity? Why should anyone else assume their risk? Hey, I enjoy the beach, and the boardwalk in Kemah, but why should we share in the risk except in the higher prices we pay there to enjoy the restaurants and other businesses? I realize that some people live there for the chemical plants that need access to salt water, or some are shrimpers, but most don’t need to be there, they just like the enviroment. Great, but don’t make me pay for your luxury.

Why should the taxpayers rebuild Miami or New Orleans? Why doesn’t FEMA bail out Oklahoma City when a tornado destroys it’s homes?

The way we have developed insurance is to encourage irresponsible behavior. I say stop it. You want to be stupid, do it at your own risk.

Posted by: gergle at August 29, 2006 4:29 AM
Comment #178049

Adrienne,

Sorry, I’m not a FDR fan.

FDR once said: “You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I’m perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths” (May 1941).

FDR had many adulterous relationships (Lucy Mercer Rutherford, Marguerite LeHand, his cousin Margaret Suckley, Princess Martha of Norway).

The New Deal was more like the Raw Deal.
Some New Deal figures:
U.S. Population (1935)…120,000,000
46,000,000 Eligible for Old Age Pension
30,000,000 Children prohibited from working
30,000,000 Government employees
13,999,998 Unemployed
——————————-
119,999,998
Left to produce U.S. wealth = 2

FDR may have planned Pearl Harbor?
(1) FDR denying intelligence to Hawaii?
(2) 27-Nov-1941, and later, FDR misled the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on?
(3) FDR sent false information to Hawaii about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet?

Did FDR know about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders? FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war? FDR told Stalin that massive public outrage was needed and that required some big sacrifice. Even Churchhill believed FDR knew all about it.

Now, if those conspiracy theories are not true, and FDR did not intentionally cover it up, then what does it say about his competence? Think about it. Either way, it was indeed a “Day of Infamy”.

The Social Security Act of 1935 was signed into law by FDR. In my opinion, it was the beginning of bloated, mismanaged, plundered system that is today, nothing more than a monstrous ponzi-scheme (now $12.8 trillion in debt). At this very moment, surpluses are still being redirected and spent and replaced with worthless bonds. Social Security Act was a basic taking away of personal choices and rewards (removing our own right and chance as responsible planners of our own future). What FDR did violated the Constitution.

1936 Supreme Court ruled FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional (US v Butler), which was FDR’s program that plowed crops under and senselessly slaughtered millions of animals at a cost of $700,000,000 over two years. As a result of cutting corn production, the US then had to import 30 million bushels from abroad. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA was “a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the union.”

When FDR was asked to do deal with silver. FDR had already confiscated all US gold at $20.67 an ounce and then raised the price to $35. FDR said: “All right. I experimented with gold and that was a flop. Why shouldn’t I experiment a little with silver?”

08-Oct-1941: FDR ordered US vessels to shoot German vessels on sight. FDR then lied to Congress about the USS Greer and Kearny incidents, and denied it was an attempt to get them to declare war against Germany. He lost all credibility. FDR also sent troops to occupy Greenland, Iceland and the Canary Islands without authority (See Charles Beard’s President Roosevelt and The Coming of War 1941).

FDR used the IRS to investigate his political enemies, e.g. Father Coughlin, Rep. Hamilton Fish, publisher Moe Annenberg of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Charles Lindbergh. FDR also stopped investigations of his friends like Lyndon B. Johnson who had committed tax fraud.

FDR acquired FBI files of his political opponents, e.g. Senator Nye., and happily discussed the sex lives of his enemies, and announced that J. Edgar Hoover was tapping Eleanor’s phone! For a general discussion by presidential historians of FDR’s abuse of the FBI see PBS NewsHour: 5-July-1996. FDR’s youngest son John said, “Hell, my father just about invented bugging. Had them spread all over, and thought nothing of it.” The No. 3 man at the FBI confirmed that to Congress in 1974. FDR also abused the Secret Service, having them investigate the source of an unfavorable story in the Wall Street Journal.

FDR used his office to unjustly enrich his dysfunctional sons through their many shady business deals. He not only phoned financiers but met with them. Jimmy made $100K selling insurance to government contractors in 1939, $25K more than his father. Elliot made $1,175,000 from 1933-1941 through White House connections. In 1939 Elliot got his father to personally strong-arm A&P Tea Company to loan Elliot $200K secured by worthless shares of a shakey Texas radio station.

FDR used organized crime to funnel New Deal money into big cities in order to bring the political machines to their knees and ultimately control them through the mafia. In NYC he used Jimmy Hines associate of the notorious Dutch Schutz; in Chicago it was Al Capone’s man Ed Kelly; and Frank Hague in New Jersey. This pattern was repeated across the nation (source: Flynn, Book 2, CH 8, Part 1).

FDR raised the effective federal tax rate by 700% between 1932 & 1939 (source: John H. Makin & Norman J. Ornstein “1994 Debt & Taxes”, Page 95). FDR’s buddy, ex KGB agent Harry Hopkins said: “We will tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.”, “This country does not know what real heavy taxation is.”

There is a definite pattern there. One thing was to grow government. And, boy, has it grown. FDR felt he could do just about anything he wanted.

If anyone thinks FDR was great, that’s their choice, but it should be an informed choice. Some might find it easier than others to overlook all of that (above), and that is just a very small sampling. True, he might have done some good things too, but I’m not sure they outweighed the bad?

… more …

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #178084

Kevin23,
No Ruskie (just some English and Cherokee), but have played thousands of games. Sorry, haven’t ever played
Sudoku, but have heard of it (bought one for my father who likes to play Sudoku).

Regarding “war on poverty” … If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime (author unknown).

However, some people don’t learn. Teach some men to fish, and they will sit in the boat and drink beer all day.

There’s a litte truth in both of those …
but not always. Not when public education is failing our children, they can’t affort higher education, and a mere 1% of the population has 40% (and growing) of all wealth, squeezing those in lower income groups. That sounds like class warfare, but it is not intended to sound that way. However, in a nation as wealthy as people say the U.S. is, why should the ranks of the poor be growing (as they are now)? The problem is that vast wealth and power are being abused. The playing field is not only not level, but slanted severely for those with wealth.

Our ridiculous tax system is a good example (which badly needs common-sense reform, but is unlikely since politicians like it the way they have perverted it). It is so full of tax loop holes, the wealthy pay a much smaller percentage of total income. While no person should pay over 20% to income taxes (our current system goes up to 35% on income, and used to be as high as 90%), many wealthy pay tiny percentages due to the pathetically abused tax system.

There are two classes in this country:

  • One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth.

  • The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization (such as merely not re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians).

So, corruption grows, and so does poverty. We can not hope to return to freedom and abundance untilt he voters have finally reached their threshold for pain and misery, and they are on the right path to (most likely) guarantee it.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #178108

DAN-

I teke your points. But surely you must like the concept and effects of public works projects. People were working, and thus not commiting crimes to survive (always a good thing in troubled times). It also brought a whole new period of prosperity as the projects themselves served the larger public interests. Southern CA and Las Vegas would not be what they are today without the Hoover Dam. One shining example of many.

This is exactly the kind of help the federal government could provide to places like N.O. after Katrina. People just want a reason to feel good. ANY reason will usually do. And building something from nothing is always a good feeling for everyone involved. And in the long run, the best investment a government can make is in infrastructure. It’ll pay for itself 10 times over if it is done well.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 29, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #178120
Kevin23 wrote: I take your points. But surely you must like the concept and effects of public works projects. People were working, and thus not commiting crimes to survive (always a good thing in troubled times).
Yes, no doubt that some projects were a success. Some of that was necessary. Things were very bad. And FDR inherited much of those problems. But, much of what FDR did made it last longer. Also, mismanagement of the monetary system may have been a contributing factor to the Great Depression (The Fed was created only a few years before in 1913), and FDR’s elimination of the Gold Standard, and making it illegal to own gold currency, paved the way for our fiat-funny-money system.

FDR was between a rock and a hard place. He was under pressure to do something. Why? Because of rumors of revolution and civil war.

So, some of the work projects were OK. Hoover damn was a good thing. At any rate, Hoover damn is a good example of a successful project that has something to show for the resources spent. But, the level corruption around many of the other programs was not OK.

Likewise, similar to what is happening in New Orleans, more oversight is required. There is massive corporate welfare and fraud going on there too. Who is behind that? You’ll have to go pretty high up to find it (i.e. congress).

Only few of the numerous things government meddled in turned out OK because they were the sort of things government can do well. Many, however, were not. And many are simply a new opportunity for graft, pork-barrel, bribes, and corporate welfare. And the lack of oversight is by design.

I’m not saying FDR didn’t do anything right. It’s just that he doesn’t, IMO, belong up on any pedastal. Very few presidents actually do. Also, IMO, the U.S. could have recovered faster had it not been for some of the things FDR did. That’s hard to prove, but there were a lot of stupid (some unconstitutional) things going on that may have exacerbated the problem.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #178124

d.a.n.,
I’ll thank you not to insult my intelligence (or your own, for that matter) with that page full of Freeper garbage.
FDR is ranked as one of three greatest presidents of all time among BOTH Liberals and Conservative historians — the other two are Lincoln and Washington.
Rather than read a bunch of shameless and vicious rightwing lies online, you should definitely read ‘Hard Times’ as I suggested earlier, and then maybe follow that up by reading a couple of well researched biographies of Roosevelt. Since the man is so very well admired, despite the fact that he was far from a completely perfect human being, there are a great many you might choose from.

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
— Annual Message to the Congress, January 6, 1941
Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits…Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.
—Radio Address to the nation


It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.

The foreign policy that we have been following—the policy that guided us at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran—is based on the common sense principle which was best expressed by Benjamin Franklin on July 4, 1776: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war. There is only one front. There is one line of unity which extends from the hearts of the people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the factory and the field, and the mine as well as of the battleground — we speak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government.

— excerpt from The State of the Union Message to Congress, January, 1944

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #178127

Adrienne-

My grandmother died at age 70 as a die-hard straight ticket voting republican. She once told me that the democrats today were aligned with the devil in a conspiracy to corrupt humanity…she feared porn, gays and rap music the most.

This being said, if you ever asked her who the best president was, she’d quickly say “Roosevelt”. She even claimed that she would vote for him today if he ran…even despite his being dead. She was born in the depression, and he was president throughout the first part of her life until adult-hood. I’ve often heard older people speak in this manor about him. Never have I heard anyone who lived during that time claim he was anything less than a competent and unifying leader.

I disagree with some of those policies, and with the benefit of not having been through the depression, I am glad the Sup. Ct. sent a lot of his ideas packing. However, he was a necessary response to a national crisis. He responded with action, and he was beloved. Not for his philosophy so much as for his ability to bring people together to fix very real problems.

That being said, that was a different time altogether. I don’t advocate abandoning the social safety net, but merely that we trim it back to match our society’s real need for it. Personally, I think we could use much of the current funding more effectively and efficiently in other areas. Our priorities have changed, and we should understand that the federal government is usually not in the best position to adapt quickly.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 29, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #178129

Adrienne,

I might agree with you on Lincoln and Washington, but not FDR.

Also, if FDR didn’t conceal information about what led up to Pearl Harbor, then you can only conclude it was extreme negligence?

Show where the facts are wrong?

Having an opinion doesn’t change the facts.
I prefer to deal in facts.

From the facts, FDR’s mishandling of the monetary system was one of the major reasons for the Great Depression lasting so long, AND we are still paying for that mistake.

So, FDR is not in my top three. Not by a long ways.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #178136

The problems of this Country are not the fault of the Government its the fault of Half the Government the Democrat Half.Good Example Ray Nagen need I say more?We dont blame the Democrats because most smart people understand that the Dems.Just dont have problem solving skills and dont play well with others!So you get the john kerrys of the world screwing everything up.

Posted by: offthehook at August 29, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #178140

““Everything was great until we had this Republican White House and Congress!” is such a foolish & ignorant statement we could spend more time picking apart that statement than city, state, & federal errors regarding Katrina. “

FEMA sure seemed to work good under Clinton.
Is there ANYTHING that bush apologists wont excuse?

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #178141

KansasDem…

I totally agree with you on the issue of SSDI as this is my sole source of income, also. Remember years ago when funds were needed somewhere (I forget) and Congress stuck it’s meaty hands into the proverbial cookie jar and took millions from the SSDI escrow? They never paid it back (what a surprise). There should have been an upheaval in this country over that business.

My 2 cents worth.
Posted by: McGlerkin at August 29, 2006 01:29 AM


I remember a few years ago a flury of coverage on this issue. Newspapers, T.V. news magazines, etc. tried to raise the alarm about the raiding of the S.S. escrow. I remember one report saying that the vast majority of Americans did not realize that the fund was now just a wharehouse full of boxes containing I.O.U.s from the goverment, rather than a separate re-investing entity. Nobody gave a rat’s ass, or more likely, nobody watched those reports, because after all, Survivor (or whatever) was on the other channel and after all, eighty-three percent of Americans can’t name the three branches of goverment, so how can they be expected to be interested in the “nuances” of our country’s finances and how they are being (mis)managed.
Adriene is exactly right, S.S. was a great program and it made us a more civilized country. It is not a goverment handout, any more than is unemployment insurance. We all pay into it and we are all entitled to withdraw from it, much like a mutual fund or any other investment vehicle or insurance program.
The problem is, the corrupt politicians (redundant) stole it.
Conservatives will say “What did you expect? Goverment is the problem, privatize S.S.! I ask, you mean like in the investors in Enron? World Com? Tyco?
The politicians have no respect for the electorate and the reason they don’t, is because the electorate doesn’t deserve respect. On these blogs we probably have the creme de la creme of political awareness and involvment and look at all the partisan sniping and bickering.
I hope d.a.n.’s dream comes true, but even if he was 100% (an impossible dream) succesfull, the improvement would be temporary, there’s too much money to be made by being or owning a congressman.

Posted by: Rene at August 29, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #178145

Observer have you not observed that New Orleans is the only City out of all the Cities hit by Katrina not to be making progress?Could it have something to do with local Politics?Like Corruption.Maybe Liberal Corruption.

Posted by: offthehook at August 29, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #178147

Kansas Dem,
I appreciate your post, and I agree that like the Neocons, many Libertarians would also like to see us go back to those bad old days when there was no social safety net but misery and degradation galore. I also agree that Eisenhower was a good man who did right by Social Security.
The obvious truth is though, an overwhelming number of Americans have indicated that they want our government to keep and protect the Social Security program, despite these ongoing attempts to attack it by radical rightwing extremists. Bush’s little snake-oil salesman tour about privitzed accounts was a terrible failure, yet, he’s already been talking about his desire to push for it again with another sales-pitch tour if Republicans hold onto their power after November.
I really hope that doesn’t happen.

Kevin,
I think the best thing that the government could do with Social Security is to quit stealing from it. That money belongs to us who payed into it, and the best thing we could do is demand they keep their grubby hands out of our collective till.

d.a.n.:
“I prefer to deal in facts.”

Then you might want to avoid the Freerepublic website. Because they lie and fabricate constantly in order to self-righteously claim that no liberal ever did anything right, ever.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #178157

Adrienne,

OK.

But, which part is a lie?
The Pearl Harbor thing is debatable and we may never know. However, either way (i.e. did FDR know in advance, or not), it looks very bad. There are good reasons why that debate still rages.

But, putting the Pearl Harbor thing aside, what facts were lies?

If it isn’t true, I will admit the mistake. However, those facts can be substantiated by other credible sources.

I did not start out to bash FDR.
However, IMO, FDR did two things we are still suffering the consequences for to this day:
(1) a fiat funny-money monetary system
(2) a monstrous, bloated, absued, and mismanaged Social Security system that has now grown into a huge problem and currently has $12.8 trillion of debt. A system that is facing shortfalls in the not-too-distant future. But, because of #(1) above, I guess we can just print some more money.

True, these things could have been remedied since they were started, but it demonstrates how far reaching and how long the consequences can last, and how important it is to not start down these paths to begin with.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #178158

Federal Reserve
Social Security

By the way, have you ever considered whether Social Security is even constitutional ?

And, considering the Federal Reserve, how is what it does and what a counterfeiter does different ?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #178161

d.a.n.:
“these things could have been remedied since they were started, but it demonstrates how far reaching and how long the consequences can last, and how important it is to not start down these paths to begin with.”

Pure Bunk.
Here, read this: Stealing Social Security. Past Present, & Future. They stole a 1.46 Trillion Surplus

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #178166

Actually, now it’s higher than when that piece was written. Now it’s up to 1.7 trillion.
Petition for Congress to Stop
Stealing Our Social Security

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #178168

“By the way, have you ever considered whether Social Security is even constitutional ?”

Are you gonna tell us that we don’t legally have to pay our taxes now?

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #178170

“(2) a monstrous, bloated, absued, and mismanaged Social Security system that has now grown into a huge problem and currently has $12.8 trillion of debt. A system that is facing shortfalls in the not-too-distant future. But, because of #(1) above, I guess we can just print some more money.”

First off, he didn’t screw it up like it is today. If the money collected was invested for interest, like a good retirement account, it wouldn’t be in trouble.
Second, you seem to be leaving out the positives about SS, like allowing seniors to live out their old age in dignity. That DOES have a value, sir.
Don’t let your anti government passions cloud the good that government does. It aint ALL bad.

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #178174

Observer, Adrienne,

Pure bunk, you say?

Which part?

You really think this stuff is merely invented?

The total current (not future) Social Security debt is $12.8 trillion (source: CATO institute (read the first paragraph)).

The mere $1.46 trillion you speak of is the only the current Social Security surplus, but that surplus is in the form of worthless bonds. There is no real surplus. Where do you think that money will come from? Oh yeah, thanks to FDR, we can just print some more, eh?

As for the plundering of Social Security, it started almost immediately after it was started (2 years). FDR and congress didn’t like that lock-box, so they passed a law to extract those surpluses and use elsewhere. Then the Social Security program was expanded in 1939 to include coverage for dependents and survivors. That was while FDR was still president. So, how you like them apples?

So, the plundering and expansive growth started right away and kept on growing and growing, and we are still paying for those mistakes.

Observer, characterizing me as anti-government is nonsense and does not change the facts.
Also, I already stated above that remedies could have occurred since it was created, but you choose to ignore that.

Observer wrote: Are you gonna tell us that we don’t legally have to pay our taxes now?
Observer, it is folly to think any government can exist or accomplish anything without funding. Some government is necessary. Otherwise there is only chaos and societal disorder.

True, FDR is not responsible for mismanangement of the systems after he died, but he is responsible for starting Social Security and our fiat-funny-money system, and confiscating gold from Americans. Think about that? What if the government, today, told you to give up your gold and silver, and other precious metals in exchange for paper money?

When FDR was asked to do deal with silver, FDR had already confiscated all US gold at $20.67 an ounce and then raised the price to $35. FDR said: “All right. I experimented with gold and that was a flop. Why shouldn’t I experiment a little with silver?”

Hey, believe what you want. You’ve been provided with some facts, ya’ll called it bunk, characterized me a being anti-government and making up lies about FDR, but have yet to disprove a single fact. ; )

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #178187

d.a.n. as I’ve always understood it, Roosevelt did that thing with gold because the richest Americans were hoarding all the gold after the stock market crash, while the rest of the country was going all to hell and all the banks were closed. So he demanded they put the gold back into the treasury, to build the total weight of our gold reserve, thus increasing the amount that was backing the dollar — the point being, to restore American confidence in the US banking system all across the board. Guess it didn’t work if that quote is to be believed (which I’m not very sure of, since the only source you’ve given is from freerepublic), but it would have actually made sense to consider doing that very thing at the height of the Depression.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #178192

“Pure bunk, you say?”

Show me where I said that.

“You’ve been provided with some facts, ya’ll called it bunk, characterized me a being anti-government and making up lies about FDR, but have yet to disprove a single fact.”

I don’t remember ever telling you your “facts” were wrong, just your characterizations.
The “facts” I know are that FDR resided over the worst depression in world history and by the end of his era, the US was the worlds superpower.
You like to tell us WHAT he did, where you fall short is telling us why, and what overall effect it had. Quoting numbers from todays SS balance sheet means nothing when talking about 1930’s america.
As for accusing him of sacraficing thousands of US lives to get us into war, your gonna have to back that up in spades before anyone takes you seriously. I doubt he was willing to sacrafice half the Pacific fleet for such a goal.

“Observer, characterizing me as anti-government is nonsense and does not change the facts.”

Really? Every post I’ve ever read from you has been anti-government.
AND, you chose to ignore my post completely with your response.
Soc.Sec. isn’t perfect, but it HAS saved untold suffering and is by far the most succesfull government program in history.
Are you planning on refusing your benefits when the time comes?

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #178193

“Observer have you not observed that New Orleans is the only City out of all the Cities hit by Katrina not to be making progress?Could it have something to do with local Politics?Like Corruption.Maybe Liberal Corruption.”

What do you base your assertion on that N.O. is making NO progress?
And which is worse, Liberal corruption, or Conservative incompetence?

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #178194

“The problems of this Country are not the fault of the Government its the fault of Half the Government the Democrat Half.Good Example Ray Nagen need I say more?”

More? You havn’t said anything, yet.
If you care to debate on this forum, you need to include CONTENT.
Cheap shots and right wing talking points don’t impress us.

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #178200

“The problem with Republicans is that when they run for election they always complain that Government doesn’t work. And when they get elected, they have to prove it.” -Al Franken

Posted by: Matthew at August 29, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #178204
Adrienne wrote: d.a.n. as I’ve always understood it, Roosevelt did that thing with gold because the richest Americans were hoarding all the gold after the stock market crash, while the rest of the country was going all to hell and all the banks were closed. So he demanded they put the gold back into the treasury, to build the total weight of our gold reserve, thus increasing the amount that was backing the dollar — the point being, to restore American confidence in the US banking system all across the board. Guess it didn’t work if that quote is to be believed
. No, it didn’t work. His reason for confiscating gold was because, for a while, the U.S. government was backing up the currency with gold for international holders, but not U.S. citizens. The problem was there were insufficient gold in the bank reserves to back up the currency in circulation. Also, you have to understand who benefits from a fiat money system to understand why so many banks and governments like it. It’s good for them, not the people. The fiat funny money system is one of the worst things ever done, because the banks and government have no discipline. In 2005, the M3 money supply increased by $917 billion. What do you think that does to existing currency? It devalues it. It causes inflation. And, we are about to see some more inflation now, because of massive debt, borrowing, printing money, spending, and, in general, fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
Observer wrote: Really? Every post I’ve ever read from you has been anti-government.
That is is false. That is a lie. I am anti-corruption. That is all. Social Security, had it ever been operated and managed correctly may have worked. But that system has cost a lot, and will cost a lot more. Is it worth the cost? It’s currently $12.8 trillion in debt.
Observer wrote: Are you planning on refusing your benefits when the time comes?
There will be nothing left by the time I retire, so there is no use worrying about it.
Observer wrote: “Pure bunk, you say?” Show me where I said that.
Adrienne wrote that. My apologies for implying you said that.
Observer wrote: AND, you chose to ignore my post completely with your response.
Not true. I just don’t agree with all of it.
Observer wrote: Soc.Sec. isn’t perfect, but it HAS saved untold suffering and is by far the most succesfull government program in history.
If the system worked correctly, it would be quite defensible. But the system does not work. I personally would like to see it work correctly, but that is not going to happen as long as voters keep re-electing the very same incumbent politicians that keep plundering it. That is the main point.

Since it has been (from the start) and is still being plundered and mismanaged, it will fail. So, based on that, FDR made a mistake. Social Security is a massive problem that will grow worse because of a deeper problem. Corrupt government and people that empower it. Social Security has been plundered, and is now being plundered, and is currently $12.8 trillion in debt, and the surpluses are still being plundered. If Social Security is to survive, voters would be wise to stop empowering those that are plundering and mismanaging it.

IMO, it will fail, eventually.
The voters will continue to re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians until their threshold for pain and misery is finally reached. That may be a while.

Observer wrote: As for accusing him of sacraficing thousands of US lives to get us into war, your gonna have to back that up in spades before anyone takes you seriously.
I already said that is a theory, and it is debatable. But, if it was not intentional, then there was something seriously wrong and some serious negligence in not warning Hawaii when there was plenty of time to do so, and putting half the fleet in one place wasn’t too smart either. A Command in Chief ought to know better than.

Two and only two courts of law have decided the issue of whether FDR and Washington or the commanders in Hawaii were responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. Both the Navy Court and the Army Board found Washington guilty (in 1944).

NAVY Court of Inquiry
Oct, 1944, “Now let us turn to the fateful period between November 27 and December 6, 1941. In this period numerous pieces of information came to our State, War, and Navy Departments in all of their Top ranks indicating precisely the intentions of the Japanese including the probable exact hour and date of the attack. ” In response to this report, Marshall offered his resignation - the sign of a guilty conscience. Marshall testified at the MacArthur hearings that he considered loyalty to his chief superior to loyalty to his country.
JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Nov 15, 1945 to May 31, 1946, proved that there had been so much reversion of testimony, coverup and outright lies that the truth would have to wait until all Pearl Harbor records were declassified.
Most of the conspirators were military men, all men of FDR’s own choice, men who only followed orders and FDR never delegated authority. Stark, in answer to charges that he denied IQ to Hawaii, publicly offered a Nuremberg defense in August 1945 that everything he did pre-Dec 7, 1941 was on FDR’s orders. The handful of military men in DC responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor were directly under the control of FDR and were later promoted and protected from investigation; promoted with FDR’s full knowledge that they were responsible for not warning Hawaii. On the record, Intelligence tried to warn HI scores of times but were prevented by FDR’s men.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #178211

“Is it worth the cost? It’s currently $12.8 trillion in debt.”

Saying “cost” is misleading.
Here’s a question. How much money has been collected for S.S. over the 60+ years compared to how much has been paid out? Do you know? Is it more or less? Just because “they” spent the money on other things doesn’t increase the cost of the program. I’d be interested if anyone knows.

“but that is not going to happen as long as voters keep re-electing the very same incumbent politicians that keep plundering it. That is the main point. “

Ok, say we voted every single one out. Then what? What about the next election? Would you then vote all THEM out? How much could possibly get done with new, inexperienced reps every few years?
Not saying the it’s a BAD idea, just wondering how far through you thunk it.

“and some serious negligence in not warning Hawaii when there was plenty of time to do”

Not sure what you mean. What intelligence would have been alarming enough to warn Hawaii about an iminent attack? Remember, no satellites, no instant communications at that distance, much less communication in general in 1941.

“On the record, Intelligence tried to warn HI scores of times but were prevented by FDR’s men.”

Can you site, DIRECTLY, where this is proven or stated in public record?

Posted by: Observer at August 29, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #178217

d.a.n.:
“His reason for confiscating gold was because, for a while, the U.S. government was backing up the currency with gold for international holders, but not U.S. citizens. The problem was there were insufficient gold in the bank reserves to back up the currency in circulation.”

If this was the case, then why did Congress and the Supreme Court allow this to happen if it was unconstitutional? If this was a criminal act, it sounds like FDR had plenty of help all around. By the way, you seem to be blaming FDR for the fact that the Federal Reserve bankrupted the entire country. It was Hoover who allowed this to happen and put no stop or check on the Fed whatsoever, remember? One last thing, if Roosevelt confiscated gold the moment he got into office, wouldn’t he have been taking it primarily from those who’d been in cahoots with the Fed? Those who had been robbing the country blind for years and who ultimately caused the entire economy to collapse?

“Also, you have to understand who benefits from a fiat money system to understand why so many banks and governments like it. It’s good for them, not the people. The fiat funny money system is one of the worst things ever done, because the banks and government have no discipline.”

But FDR wasn’t the one who created the Federal Reserve. Wilson did. And it was Hoover who allowed them with complete impunity to become the biggest crooks in the history of the world.

Btw, I must tell you, I’ve always had difficulty understanding why the Federal Reserve was supposed to be a good idea. It seems like it should have been considered unconstitutional.

“Two and only two courts of law have decided the issue of whether FDR and Washington or the commanders in Hawaii were responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. Both the Navy Court and the Army Board found Washington guilty (in 1944).”

Sorry d.a.n. but this is pretty funny. Surprise, surprise, the Army and the Navy looked at what their commanders did, and then looked at what Washington did, and decided to blame Washington.
So, what else is new?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #178226

—-D.A.N. an Others — I am somewhat disappointed
in that you fail to some degree to comprehend what
consequences would be incurred for millions of old
or disabled people, with out the ability to have
invested their money for many, different reasons. All people, even aborigenes an tribes of Africa
take care of their elderly an sick. I find that
many people in the United States don’t give
two dead flies for their relatives or anyone
else as far as caring, or supporting them.
Humanitarisiam is not political but it is
the humane act, for which is seen here by
many as being cognitive dissonance which I
consider a betrayal to humanity! Next
time you look in the looking-glass, take a
long look. I hope you find more than what your
posts seem to portrays.

Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #178230

——-Sococial security takes care of all your problems in a very small way, so you don’t have
the worry, after all.—-

Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #178231

— social—sorry

Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #178232

Maybe the courts were both wrong? Maybe.
True, FDR didn’t create the Federal Reserve.
But, FDR took us off the gold standard.
That might have been OK if rampant printing of money had not occurred afterward, and ever since.
From 1950 to 2000, the M3 money supply increased on average by $135 billion per year. In 2005, the M3 money supply jumped $917 billion.

I’ve always had difficulty understanding why the Federal Reserve was supposed to be a good idea.
It’s not. It was a terrible idea, but it’s easy to understand why banks and government like it.
Observer wrote: Ok, say we voted every single one out. Then what?
Then we will have congress persons that are more responsible if they know they will be voted out if they aren’t. It’s that simple. The problem is not one of human intelligence. It’s one of accountability.
Can you site, DIRECTLY, where this is proven or stated in public record?
The statement was: “On the record, Intelligence tried to warn HI scores of times but were prevented by FDR’s men.”, which is a conclusion based on government reports, Navy Inquiry, an Army Report, and a joint congressional committees. If you care to read through it, you will draw the conclusion that information was held back, or there was extreme incompetence. Take your pick. a topsecret Army Report, Pearl Harbor, congressional committee

DAVID,
I just said above that I wished Social Security would work. But it and many things are doomed to fail if voters ignore their duty to elect responsible government. It’s not my wish to leave people destitute. Just because I say Social Security is dysfunctional, $12.8 trillion in debt, and severely mismanaged does not mean that is the root of the problem.

What we need to worry about is how to keep it solvent (which it isn’t). It’s barely pay as you go at the moment, and 77 million baby boomers are retiring by 2000 per day, and the system is going to be tested. Do you think it’s gonna make it? I don’t, because it will continue to be mismanaged, because lazy voters keep ignoring their government, even empowering it to grow corruption and government ever larger. We will learn. Pain and misery is a good teacher.

  • Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 12:41 AM
    Comment #178239

    —-d.a.n —- You are correct, if the Gov.were to pay
    back all the iou’s, I wounder how much that would be.

    Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 4:55 AM
    Comment #178253

    DAVID,
    What worries me is the simultaneous debt, trillions of unfunded liabilities, and the non-stop printing presses at the Fed.
    How will they will keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare going?
    They will do it by more printing more money, and more borrowing, and more debt.
    Check out the inflation, debt, and M3 money supply on this chart. This is one thing people should be concerned about, but few are talking about the debt and rampant money printing. It is funny to listen to the market analysts and talk about the Fed, but no one ever talks about the rampant money printing. Everyone seems to think printing all the money you need is OK. The problem we have now is large debt and large unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and $1 billion per day for interest alone. Where’s the money gonna come from? They will have no choice but to print it. A lot of it. Get ready for high inflation. Look at the link above to see what a mere 4.5% inflation can do to $100 in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years. We may be headed for double-digit inflation again (like in the 1980’s). It seems unavoidable with all those things considered. Also, look at the chart between 1995 and 2000. How did Clinton almost balance the budget? He printed a whole lot of money. Since 2000, there has been massive printing of money AND massive borrowing, and massive expansions of Medicare and Medicaid. It’s not a pretty picture. The next recession may be very difficult to recover from. NOTE: Also, looking at the chart, notice what happened to inflation after FDR eliminated the Gold Standard in 1933, and switched to our current fiat-money-system. Inflation has simply grown, and grown, and grown. It creates bubbles as people run around like “chickens with their head cut off” looking for some place to put money to keep it from shrinking due to inflation.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 8:56 AM
    Comment #178256

    The ONLY way the government will be able to keep paying $1 billion per day in interest (alone), keep paying for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else is to print a whole lot of money. The government can’t tax enough to cover the shortfalls. Expect inflation to grow in the coming decade, because the government has painted itself in a corner and the only way out will be to print more money, possibly raise taxes (which won’t help much), and stop rampant spending and borrowing. Even if they do all that, there will be problems. Inflation will set in, and that will create bubbles. We already have a housing/real-estate bubble that has just started. That occurred as people fled slumping stocks. All of those bubble and instability is largely a result of fiscal irresponsibility. Also, GDP growth is not being reported correctly. Those numbers are suspect. Look at adjusted GDP to get a real picture (adjusted for inflation). Things may look OK in some respects (at the moment), but the path we are on can not be good. Massive debt, borrowing, spending, and rampant money printing can not last forever.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 9:03 AM
    Comment #178291

    Another way to pay for these things is to quit wasting our money trying to referee a civil war in Iraq.

    There is mothing in Iraq as important as taking care of Americans here.

    Uncle Dick and Halliburton have made more than enough so we can quit funding them for a while and start taking care of our own.

    Posted by: Gedunk at August 30, 2006 12:34 PM
    Comment #178297

    —-d.a.n—
    I would like to pin you down to one answer to
    the previous question I asked, which is, How much
    Money does the Federal Government owe in back
    money, IOU’S if you like, for the past fifty years? Any Guesses or facts that you know on that
    subject ?

    over the years ?
    Thank you. David

    Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 1:12 PM
    Comment #178303

    Paul,

    What an absolutely idiotic thesis. Since you conveniently ignore Democratic corruption and failures when they held the reigns of power, you demonstrate a level of stupidity that rivals Howard Dean.

    Government is not the solution or problem…it’s the people that make up the government. Both parties have had good and bad people, and always will.

    If we’re to throw out the baby (Republicans), let’s also throw out the bath water (Democrats) come November.

    Posted by: mac6115cd at August 30, 2006 1:43 PM
    Comment #178310

    Paul - Gotta agree with several others - the bottom line is that government cannot solve all problems or right all wrongs.

    Both Republicans and Democrats have suffered fools in Washington for too long. We have abdicated all personal responsibility and allowed this bloated leviathan we call government to overtake our lives from birth to death. It is now a train rolling down the mountain. Way too much bureaucratic inertia - it cannot be stopped, controlled nor reformed by electing or unelecting either party IMO.

    Posted by: Seminole 6 at August 30, 2006 2:11 PM
    Comment #178311

    “The statement was: “On the record, Intelligence tried to warn HI scores of times but were prevented by FDR’s men.”, which is a conclusion based on government reports, Navy Inquiry, an Army Report, and a joint congressional committees.”

    Still seems pretty vague. Who tried to warn Who and WHO stopped them?
    BTW, remember, FDR was already dead when that investigation occurred. Pretty easy to blame a guy who can’t defend himself.

    Posted by: Observer at August 30, 2006 2:15 PM
    Comment #178334

    observer— I would love to see a link to that FDR
    statement, wouldn’t you ?

    Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 4:51 PM
    Comment #178377
    Observer wrote: Still seems pretty vague. Who tried to warn Who and WHO stopped them?
    Read the documents. There were several military men in D.C. that were responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor, and they were directly under the control of FDR, and they were later promoted and protected from investigation; all promoted with FDR’s full knowledge that they were responsible for not warning Hawaii when they could have.
    [1] Admiral Kimmel learned of the “winds” code in a Nov. 28th dispatch to him from the US Asiatic Fleet. JCC, p. 470. [2] DC informed HI that codes were being burned world-wide so when they learned the local consulate burned codes they would not go on alert. [3] General Short was given the “Winds Execute” by British IQ. None of the 3 diplomatic messages or the many naval messages identifying Pearl Harbor as the target were forwarded to Hawaii (not to mention human intelligence), and only 5 of the 74 Navy IQ packets delivered to FDR in the 2 weeks before Dec 7 could be found.

    DAVID, Observer,
    I provided the links (above) to the records on which that conclusion was drawn. If you read it, and still conclude that it was NOT intentional, it’s hard not to conclude it was extreme negligence.
    Link1 ( replace — with : ): ftp—//ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/navy.court/”>Link1
    Link2 ( replace — with : ): ftp++//ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/misc/army_1.txt
    Link3 ( replace — with : ): ftp—//ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/congress/

    Those are government documents. Read it and see what you think? There is a good reason the facts make some people wonder about ulterior motives? And even if there was no misconduct, you then have to sum it up to incompetence. Take your pick. The same sort of thing happened with Bush. He received lots of warnings about securing cock-pits on airlines, about Al-Qaida and Bin Laden planning attacks, and the FBI had even heard of plans to use planes as missiles, and they were all ignored. It makes one wonder if these things were being ignored for a reason? If not, you have to chaulk it up to extreme incompetence. Again, take your pick.

    DAVID wrote: —-d.a.n— I would like to pin you down to one answer to the previous question I asked, which is, How much Money does the Federal Government owe in back money, IOU’S if you like, for the past fifty years? Any Guesses or facts that you know on that subject ? over the years ? Thank you. David

    Total (current) federal debt (not counting past forgiven or forgotten loans), the total U.S. Federal Debt is as follows (just the major things):

      (1) National Debt: $8.5 trillion
    • (2) Social Security Debt: $12.8 trillion (source: CATO Institute)

    • (3) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp: $450 billion
    ____________________________________
    Total = $21.75 trillion

    That is almost twice GDP ($12.4 trillion).
    Federal tax revenues are about $2.2 trillion (annually).

    The federal debt is likely to grow drastically in the next few years due to the following (for things that have no funding, and were not adequately budgeted for yet):

    • (1) Unfunded Medicare liabilities

    • (2) Unfunded Medicaid liabilites

    • (3) Unfundred Social Security shortfalls in the next few decades (or sooner)

    • (4) War in Iraq

    • (5) costs of hurricanes Katrina and Rita

    • (6) service on the $8.5 trillion National Debt is cost over $1 billion per day in interest alone.

    It’s interesting that more people aren’t concerned about the fiscal picture. Perhaps it is because they don’t know about it, or don’t understand it. But it seems more people familiar with economics and business are not concerned that the government and Federal Reserve increased the M3 Money Supply by $917 billion in year 2005. Bill Clinton and the FED printed trillions of new money in his two terms. You can clearly see what it has done to inflation.

    Look at the links above about inflation.
    Get ready. We are going to see more of it, because the money has to come from somewhere. The debt is already too high, so the solution will be to print the money. That is how Bill Clinton almost balanced the budget ( home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/FederalReserve.htm ).

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 6:58 PM
    Comment #178379
    Observer wrote: Still seems pretty vague. Who tried to warn Who and WHO stopped them?
    Read the documents. There were several military men in D.C. that were responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor, and they were directly under the control of FDR, and they were later promoted and protected from investigation; all promoted with FDR’s full knowledge that they were responsible for not warning Hawaii when they could have.
    [1] Admiral Kimmel learned of the “winds” code in a Nov. 28th dispatch to him from the US Asiatic Fleet. JCC, p. 470. [2] DC informed HI that codes were being burned world-wide so when they learned the local consulate burned codes they would not go on alert. [3] General Short was given the “Winds Execute” by British IQ. None of the 3 diplomatic messages or the many naval messages identifying Pearl Harbor as the target were forwarded to Hawaii (not to mention human intelligence), and only 5 of the 74 Navy IQ packets delivered to FDR in the 2 weeks before Dec 7 could be found.

    DAVID, Observer,
    I provided the links (above) to the records on which that conclusion was drawn. If you read it, and still conclude that it was NOT intentional, it’s hard not to conclude it was extreme negligence.
    Link1 ( replace — with forward slashes ): ftp:—ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/navy.court/”>Link1
    Link2 : ftp:—ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/misc/army_1.txt
    Link3 : ftp:—ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/congress/

    Those are government documents. Read it and see what you think? There is a good reason the facts make some people wonder about ulterior motives? And even if there was no misconduct, you then have to sum it up to incompetence. Take your pick. The same sort of thing happened with Bush. He received lots of warnings about securing cock-pits on airlines, about Al-Qaida and Bin Laden planning attacks, and the FBI had even heard of plans to use planes as missiles, and they were all ignored. It makes one wonder if these things were being ignored for a reason? If not, you have to chaulk it up to extreme incompetence. Again, take your pick.

    DAVID wrote: —-d.a.n— I would like to pin you down to one answer to the previous question I asked, which is, How much Money does the Federal Government owe in back money, IOU’S if you like, for the past fifty years? Any Guesses or facts that you know on that subject ? over the years ? Thank you. David

    Total (current) federal debt (not counting past forgiven or forgotten loans), the total U.S. Federal Debt is as follows (just the major things):

      (1) National Debt: $8.5 trillion
    • (2) Social Security Debt: $12.8 trillion (source: CATO Institute)

    • (3) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp: $450 billion
    ____________________________________
    Total = $21.75 trillion

    That is almost twice GDP ($12.4 trillion).
    Federal tax revenues are about $2.2 trillion (annually).

    The federal debt is likely to grow drastically in the next few years due to the following (for things that have no funding, and were not adequately budgeted for yet):

    • (1) Unfunded Medicare liabilities

    • (2) Unfunded Medicaid liabilites

    • (3) Unfundred Social Security shortfalls in the next few decades (or sooner)

    • (4) War in Iraq

    • (5) costs of hurricanes Katrina and Rita

    • (6) service on the $8.5 trillion National Debt is cost over $1 billion per day in interest alone.

    It’s interesting that more people aren’t concerned about the fiscal picture. Perhaps it is because they don’t know about it, or don’t understand it. But it seems more people familiar with economics and business are not concerned that the government and Federal Reserve increased the M3 Money Supply by $917 billion in year 2005. Bill Clinton and the FED printed trillions of new money in his two terms. You can clearly see what it has done to inflation.

    Look at the links above about inflation.
    Get ready. We are going to see more of it, because the money has to come from somewhere. The debt is already too high, so the solution will be to print the money. That is how Bill Clinton almost balanced the budget ( home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/FederalReserve.htm ).

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 7:00 PM
    Comment #178393

    —- d.a.n — Remarkable, Thanks Dan that was a
    great deal of work, an I appreciate all the
    effort on your part retrieving so much info.
    David

    Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 7:47 PM
    Comment #178402

    —-d.a.n— The original question(how much money do
    Feds, owe Social Security, IOU-is One point Two
    Trillion Dollars!!

    Posted by: DAVID at August 30, 2006 8:26 PM
    Comment #178414
    —-d.a.n— The original question(how much money do Feds, owe Social Security, IOU-is One point Two Trillion Dollars!!
    Not according to CATO Institute and a number of other credible sources. The Social Security debt is $12.8 trillion.

    __________________________________
    CATO Institute: … The short answer is that Social Security is already $12.8 trillion in debt… Social Security is safe today but will run deficits in only 12 years. That’s not a very long time to fix the world’s biggest government program. Moreover, the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become. For every year that we wait, Social Security reform will cost an additional $600 billion (and that is in 2005 dollars).
    __________________________________


    Now, we know that $12.8 trillion of Social Security Debt will never really be paid back. The $1.2 trillion you speak of (larger than $1.2 trillion now) is only a portion of the total debt, and it refers to the borrowed surpluses, which are in the form of government bonds (I.O.U.s).

    The way the government and the Fed plan to fund everything (actually, the only choice left) is to print more money. A lot of it.

    With 77 million baby boomers retiring (at a rate of 2000 per day), expecting to draw Social Security and Medicare, I personally don’t think the system will remain solvent without some major cuts in benefits too. They can print all the money they want, but it won’t buy as much as each day goes by with high inflation.

    The outlook for the U.S. should be bright. It could be bright. But there are too many people that want to ride in the wagon, and not enough that want to push the wagon. We will learn, eventually. It’s not easy to live at the expense of everyone else.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 9:34 PM
    Comment #178420

    Weary Willy,

    You want to know something?
    Why tax the people at all?
    Seriously. If the government and Fed are going to print money and increase M3 Money Supply by $917 billion per year, then why tax people.

    Why not just print the money needed?

    That way, everyone is taxed equally.

    OK, you may be laughing, but think out of the box for a moment … in 2005, the federal government collected $2.2 trillion in taxes, and increased the money supply by $917 billion.

    Rather than tax people (a system that is certainly costly and full of loop holes), why not just print more money? Of course, that will cause inflation, but it is the same percentage for everyone !

    Get it?

    If inflation is 10%, and you have $200K, it will be reduced by inflation more than the poor schmuck who has only $500 in his pocket.

    Thus, everyone is essentially taxed the same PERCENTAGE.

    Now, that may not set well with foreign currencies. But, what the hell? We practically already doing that very thing anyway.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 9:54 PM
    Comment #178421

    If you can beat ‘em, might as well join ‘em.

    Rather than pretend our fiat funny-money-system is a funny-money-system, we might as well embrace it, abuse it, experiment with it, and finally learn a hard lesson that is only being delayed by the massive ignorance about it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 9:56 PM
    Comment #178431

    Weary Willie,

    I already got into quite a bit of trouble last year talking about lawyers and promised not to defame that profession any more.

    I used to work at a law firm (not as a lawyer, as a software developer; and only for about 18 months; it was all a person could take, and didn’t hated the idea of working somewhere that made me feel dirty). Not that all lawyers are bad, but that profession, like some others (e.g. politics, clergy, media, etc.) have a way of attracting parasites more so than others (e.g. fire-fighter, paramedic, doctor, construction worker, etc.).

    I increasingly became embarrassed and ashamed and asked my wife to not tell my parents I worked at a law firm, because they still thought I played piano at a whorehouse.

    Also, have you noticed, many politicians were lawyers before they became politicians ?

    Ooo o p p p p s s s ssss. Can’t help myself. At any rate, the profession is not the problem. Many professions simply offer more avenues to power and self-gain. Few cheaters seek out jobs in science and engineering, when the power is in politics. It’s really a problem rooted in a basic human trait.

    Oh, here’s another good one (for those with a tiny bit of sense of humor) …
    _________________________________

    There were these five surgeons discussing the best patients to operate on?

    The 1st surgeon says: “I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.”

    The 2nd responds, “Yeah, but you should try electricians. Everything inside them is color coded.”

    The 3rd surgeon says, “I prefer librarians. Everything inside is in alphabetical order!

    The 4th surgeon chimes in, “I like construction workers. Those guys don’t really mind when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.”

    The 5th surgeon shut them all up when he observed, “No. Hands down, politicians are by far the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart and no spine, and the head and butt are interchangeable.”

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2006 10:40 PM
    Comment #178437

    —-d.a.n— That’s what I sorta thought while in med.
    school, once I became a forensic psychiatrist, Every
    one thought we were (you know) HE HA their coming to take us away again ha ha. get it ? thanks

    Posted by: DAVID at August 31, 2006 12:01 AM
    Comment #178443

    Weary,
    Those quotes you attributed to me weren’t mine, they were FDR’s from 1944 (my block quoting got screwed up but if you’d read to the bottom, you’d have noticed this.) The plain truth is, without FDR, this country would have fallen completely apart — not that you’ll agree — but it’s really very plain to see once one does a little reading about the era. I suggest you do.

    d.a.n., you lost me. All those bullet points and graphs do it to me every time. Just once I’d like you to to have a real chat with ME, rather than push your generalized theories overall. You should try it sometime — I love to read history, and I’m not too shabby at conversational give and take. Just because we disagree about something, doesn’t mean we can’t entertain and/or learn something new from each other, y’know?

    Observer, well done in this thread.
    DAVID, I too would like to know the answer to your question, but I’m not sure anyone has ever even tried to compile that particular info into an easy to read format. Probably buried in some long rows of statistics somewhere, waiting to be discovered and discussed by people like us. :^)

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2006 1:22 AM
    Comment #178447

    —Adrienne— I enjoy your comprehensive coherent
    posts as always, an I am sorry to confuse you
    by my less than orthodox post, although I am
    actually seeking out an unusual, rather complex,
    Ideology. Wish I could enunciate more clearly
    for you. (Smile) Never tell secrets in a corn
    field, because there are too many ears!

    Posted by: DAVID at August 31, 2006 3:39 AM
    Comment #178448

    —-Weary Willy— You say your feet stink! Wash them.
    Try a little Desenex, an be sure to get some
    new socks. Maybe you don’t wear shoes? sorry

    Posted by: DAVID at August 31, 2006 4:05 AM
    Comment #178451

    —-d.a.n— On CATO “RESEARCH” under IOU $15.7

    Trillion. Heading (Happy Birthday Social Security).?

    Posted by: DAVID at August 31, 2006 5:23 AM
    Comment #178489
    d.a.n., you lost me. All those bullet points and graphs do it to me every time. Just once I’d like you to to have a real chat with ME, rather than push your generalized theories overall. You should try it sometime — I love to read history, and I’m not too shabby at conversational give and take. Just because we disagree about something, doesn’t mean we can’t entertain and/or learn something new from each other, y’know?
    Adrienne wrote: d.a.n., you lost me. All those bullet points and graphs do it to me every time.

    On what ?

    • Inflation? (look at the CPI since 1933).

    • M3 Money Supply? (which increased by $917 billion in 2005)

    • FDR? (we might as well agree to disagree on that one).

    (Like those bullets? : ) )

    Adrienne wrote: I’d like you to to have a real chat with ME,

    Sorry. I thought that is what we were doing? What would you like to know. Ask a specific question, and I’ll do my best to answer it.

    Adrienne wrote: … rather than push your generalized theories overall.

    Generalized? Not true. Not at all. Few here are more specific than me. We all have lots of theories, and try hard to back it up with facts. We all have our own styles, and I am not picking on yours. Besides, that would be critiquing the messenger, instead of the message? As far as FDR is concerned, the point is that there were several questionable things and events, and provided those events and documentation that raise the question of either ulterior motive or incompetence (especially with regard to the information withheld from Hawaii)? Afterall, if you read those government documents, you will see that information was going in, but it was not coming out. Why? What happened to 69 of the 74 Navy IQ packets delivered to FDR two weeks before 7-DEC-1941 ?!? But, there is more, and there was also a well established motive. Think about it. FDR may not be the great man you think he was. Often, people have a tendency to immortalize and worship people. Generally, that is a mistake. There are very few that deserve that recognition. Their deeds speak the loudest. Not their speeches (i.e. Inaugural or State of the Union speeches).

    Read the documents (see links below). There were several in the military in Washington D.C. that were responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor, and they were directly under the control of FDR, and they were later promoted and protected from investigation; all promoted with FDR’s full knowledge that they were responsible for not warning Hawaii when they could have.


    [1] Admiral Kimmel learned of the “winds” code in a Nov. 28th dispatch to him from the US Asiatic Fleet. JCC, p. 470.
    [2] DC informed HI that codes were being burned world-wide so when they learned the local consulate burned codes they would not go on alert.
    [3] General Short was given the “Winds Execute” by British IQ.
    None of the 3 diplomatic messages or the many naval messages identifying Pearl Harbor as the target were forwarded to Hawaii (not to mention human intelligence), and only 5 of the 74 Navy IQ packets delivered to FDR in the 2 weeks before Dec 7 could be found.

    Link1
    Link2
    Link3

    DAVID wrote: —-d.a.n— On CATO “RESEARCH” under IOU $15.7 Trillion. Heading (Happy Birthday Social Security).?

    That’s terrible ain’t it? ! ?
    Yes, the numbers keep changing. That $15.7 trillion may include some future unfunded liablilities? On the F.A.Q. page it states current Social Security Debt as $11.9 to $12.8 trillion. On another page it states $15.3 trillion, but includes some future unfunded liablities. For example:


    HAPPY BIRTHDAY SOCIAL SECURITY …
    Overall, the system’s unfunded liabilities—the amount it has promised more than it can actually pay—now totals $15.3 trillion. Yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” Setting aside some technical changes in how future obligations are calculated, that’s $550 billion worse than last year. In other words, because Congress failed to act last year, our children and grandchildren were handed a bill for another $550 billion.

    Shocking isn’t it. It’s incredulous when people talk about surpluses that don’t exist.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2006 11:09 AM
    Comment #178531

    —-d.a.n— Where is the line between future obligations an the IOU borrowed money from the
    social security fund? Are you including all the
    paid outs, in one lump sum? I still would like
    to find out how much money in IOU to s.s. should be
    paid back to the social security fund by Congress!!


    Posted by: DAVID at August 31, 2006 1:02 PM
    Comment #178587

    Our government needs to reinvest in the good ole U.S.A., Posted by: McGlerkin at August 29, 2006 01:17

    That would be nice, let us start with my agenda of removing all above ground wiring. Every place there is a telephone pole there should be a tree instead. Trees are good. Dead sticks that used to be a tree are bad.

    Posted by: ohrealy at August 31, 2006 5:48 PM
    Comment #178593

    In Fort Myers, a person would get a hefty fine of at least $500 for damaging one of their trademark palms. Putting the wiring underground also makes it harder for power outages to happen, as the result of storms, ice, lightning strikes, etc.

    Posted by: ohrealy at August 31, 2006 6:24 PM
    Comment #178620

    Check it out …

    Who is it? What state are you in? Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2006 05:46 PM
    Take your memory pill, as well as the other ones, d.a.n., we have already had this conversation before.
    Posted by: ohrealy at August 31, 2006 06:14 PM

    Ohreally, what is this on your web-site ? Why are you doing that? That sort of thing can work both ways.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2006 7:21 PM
    Comment #178741

    Underground power looks much nicer (since you can’t see them), but underground power lines:

    • are more expensive (5 to 10 times more expensive); so poorer neighborhoods usually have above ground power and utility lines.

    • expose more EMF (since they are closer to the ground surface)

    • are more dangerous since they are often accidentally dug up.

    • can be more expensive to maintain.

    • may require law changes.

    • will not stop electricity outages.

    • are not as susceptible to wind and debris-blown damage, but are more susceptible to water intrusion and local flood damage, which can make repairs more time consuming and costly.

    • can be more difficult and more time consuming to locate problems.

    • interruptions may typically last longer due to more complex repair requirements.

    • take the longest to repair, because underground facilities were still flooded many days after the storm has passed.

    • can experience damage and corrosion in mere days or even months, causing additional outages and inconvenience to customers.

    • can experience damage and corrosion due to growing roots of tree and plants.

    • face outages from trees collapsing and tree root systems can uproot buried cable when trees topple.

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 1, 2006 11:14 AM
    Comment #178812

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_US_Iraq_Media_Monitoring.html

    So much for the U.S. Constitution’s protection of freedom of press. They make this sound like a contest (“…the winning bidder”). This is the sorriest thing I’ve read today.

    I shouldn’t be surprised. And I never liked Rumsfeld. This news makes me ill.

    Posted by: McGlerkin at September 1, 2006 4:15 PM
    Comment #178831

    U.S. tax payers are defrauded daily.
    It’s ridiculous.
    But, don’t worry.
    The U.S. has lots of money.
    What ever they need, they can print.
    Just look at 2005. M3 Money Supply increased by $721 billion (that’s $60 billion per month = $2 billion per day = $82 million per hour = $1.37 million per minute = $23K per second).
    Look at 2002. M3 Money Supply increased by $917 billion. That’s why we have the ever present inflation, bubbles, and economic instability.

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 1, 2006 5:59 PM
    Comment #178832

    Third Party, Independent, Democrat, and Republcian challengers should jump at this infrequent opportunity to finally get a voice in government.

    Get on the ballots A.S.A.P.

    I for one, a former Republican, will be voting for challengers, regardless of party, because:

    • long time incumbents have enjoyed a 90% re-election rate for a long time, and they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt how corrupt and incompetent they are.

    • incumbent politicians resist any common-sense, no-brainer reforms if it might even remotely diminish their power or opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power.

    • incumbent politicians refuse to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, tax reform, etc.), and newcomers, who would like to pass reforms, can’t because the incumbents won’t let them. Newcomers are always outnumbered by incumbent politicians, who like things just the way they have perverted them.

    • incumbent politicians have created many unfair perk$ for themselves, and even perverted the system so that their raises are now automatic.

    • most (if not all) incubment politicians they are FOR-SALE. Let me count the ways … see for yourself at Citizens Against Government Waste (cagw.org). Then there’s the Abramoff thing, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg; just what we know a little about.

    • incumbent politicians’ seem to almost always come down with some sort of disease shortly have being elected. Their brains seem to turn to jelly after taking office? They forget their campaign promises (e.g. “read my lips”, “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building”, “”

    • incumbent politicians’ rhetoric bear no resemblence to their votes. They say one thing and then vote the completely opposite.

    • when incumbent politicians aren’t out-right lying, they lie by omission. Sort of like Ted Stevens recent “secret hold” on BILL (S. 2590), and no other congress persons would reveal who it was.

    • incumbent politicians can’t control spending. While troops were without body armor, congress is spending and voting on pork-barrel ($24 to 28 billion per year since 2002)

    • are fiscally irresponsible.

    • incumbent politicians are bought-and-paid-for, too beholding to their big-money-donors, and refuse to tackle tough issues for fear of risking re-election, or defying their big-money-donors.

    • incumbent politicians fuel the partisan warfare, and seduce voters into a circular pattern that distracts the voters from more substantive issues.

    • incumbent politicians continue to grow government, borrowing, and print money like crazy (M3 Money suppy increased by $721 billion in 2005), and grow the national debt to nightmare proportions, which is threatening the future and security of the nation.

    • incumbent politicians pressure and seduce newcomers into Congress to conform to the status quo, look the other way, or be shunned and isolated.

    • incumbent politicians spend a great deal of time and tax-payers’ money (via allowances) trolling for money for their campaign war-chests.

    • incumbent politicians somehow (mainly via partisan warfare) still convince many voters to empower the incumbents that use and abuse the voters .

    It is not as important who you vote for as it is that who you vote for understands that they too will not be re-elected (or recalled) if they are irresponsible too.

    The problem is not one of human intelligence or talent.
    It’s mostly a problem of accountability, and irresponsible incumbent politicians will not be responsible and accountable as long as voters keep re-electing them.

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 1, 2006 6:01 PM
    Post a comment