DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 21, 2007, 09:50:45 PM
-
The real war on children
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
On Thursday, Congress attempted to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion. SCHIP? Isn't that something to do with health care for children? Absolutely. And here is Bay Area Democratic Rep. Pete Stark addressing the issue with his customary forensic incisiveness:
"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
I'm not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words ? "children," "illegal war," "$200 billion," "lies," etc. ? and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: You can say 'em in any order, and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd.
Congressman Stark is unlikely ever to be confused with Gen. Stark, who gave New Hampshire its stirring motto, "Live free or die!" In the congressman's case, the choice appears to be: "Live free on government health care or die in Bush's illegal war!" Nevertheless, in amongst the autopilot hooey the Stark raving madman did use an interesting expression: "the war on children."
One assumes he means some illegal Republican Party "war on children." Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase "the children" like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette's syndrome: "This is a discussion about America's children ? We could establish ourselves as the children's Congress ? Come forward on behalf of the children ... I tried to do that when I was sworn in as speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children."
Etc. So what is the best thing America could do "for the children"? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be "fixed" ? or we'll have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities in the United States are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product. In Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 percent ? that's not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; that's total societal collapse.
So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I paid my taxes, I want my benefits.
In France, President Sarkozy is proposing a very modest step ? that those who retire before the age of 65 should not receive free health care ? and the French are up in arms about it. He's being angrily denounced by 53-year-old retirees, a demographic hitherto unknown to functioning societies. You spend your first 25 years being educated, you work for two or three decades, and then you spend a third of a century living off a lavish pension, with the state picking up every health care expense. No society can make that math add up.
And so, in a democratic system today's electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for "the children" to worry about. That's the real "war on children" ? and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it.
A couple of weeks ago, the Democrats put up a 12-year-old SCHIP beneficiary from Baltimore, Graeme Frost, to deliver their official response to the President's Saturday-morning radio address. And immediately afterwards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and I jumped the sick kid in a dark alley and beat him to a pulp. Or so you'd have thought from the press coverage: The Washington Post called us "meanies." Well, no doubt it's true we hard-hearted conservatives can't muster the civilized level of discourse of Pete Stark. But we were trying to make a point ? not about the kid, but about the family, and their relevance as a poster child for expanded government health care. Mr. and Mrs. Frost say their income's about $45,000 a year ? she works "part-time" as a medical receptionist, and he works "intermittently" as a self-employed woodworker. They have a 3,000-square-foot home plus a second commercial property with a combined value of over $400,000, and three vehicles ? a new Chevy Suburban, a Volvo SUV, and a Ford F-250 pickup.
How they make that arithmetic add up is between them and their accountant. But here's the point: The Frosts are not emblematic of the health care needs of America so much as they are of the delusion of the broader Western world. They expect to be able to work "part-time" and "intermittently" but own two properties and three premium vehicles and have the state pick up health care costs. Who do you stick with the bill? Four-car owners? Much of France already lives that way: A healthy, wealthy, well-educated populace works a mandatory maximum 35-hour week with six weeks of paid vacation and retirement at 55 and with the government funding all the core responsibilities of adult life.
I'm in favor of tax credits for child health care, and Health Savings Accounts for adults, and any other reform that emphasizes the citizen's responsibility to himself and his dependants. But middle-class entitlement creep would be wrong even if was affordable, even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover it every month: it turns free-born citizens into enervated wards of the Nanny State. As Gerald Ford likes to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. As I point out in my book, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: Once a fellow's enjoying the fruits of Euro-style entitlements, he couldn't give a hoot about the general societal interest; he's got his, and who cares if it's going to bankrupt the state a generation hence?
That's the real "war on children": in Europe, it's killing their future. Don't make the same mistake here.
Approaching total societal collapse (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/children-war-care-1899214-health-government)
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv102007a.jpg)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20071019RZ1AP-SocSecurity.jpg)
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb102307cd.jpg)
-
Ah, Mark Steyn shoveling out the bovine feces again.
Now can you make an argument without a Canadian film and music critic making it for you?
-
Ah, Mark Steyn shoveling out the bovine feces again.
You betcha. All that freedom from any monetary collapse to our Social servce entitlements, and getting layed at the feet of "the children" is just soooooooooo bogus
*sarcasm alert* for folks not accustom to such
Now can you make an argument without a Canadian film and music critic making it for you?
Been there done that.
-
We have very little social services in the United States. We have a nonexistent welfare system after TANF replaced AFDC. We have a disability benefit that is little more than a joke, purposefully designed to keep people away from it, even those who are in desperate need of disability payments.
All we really have is social security. For some, it is the only retirement they will have, especially as outservicing to private contracted labor groups has become more and more popular.
But yeah, let's get rid of it too. After all, a Canadian film and music critic and Sirs, a middle class American who complains about his taxes are worried about the children. Not mentioned here is the fact that the dubster's spending is all going to be paid for by the children. You know, Dick Cheney's "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" fiscal brilliance?
-
We have very little social services in the United States.
Well, if you're going to start with a false premise, its gonna be really hard to take anything that follows with any sense of validity. Compared to many Euopean states/countries, perhaps, but trying to lay claim how we have "very little" is a pretty egregiously incorrect statement
All we really have is social security.
One of the biggest is indeed SS, which by the way, IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT, unless major reforms are put into effect VERY SOON. But no one seems to want to talk about that >:(
But yeah, let's get rid of it too.
Ahh, and you'll do us the favor of showing us ANYONE here, or within the GOP, or with Bush, who has decided to "get rid of it". We thank you in advance.
-
It is not a false premise. Our welfare state is a joke. If you are going to accuse me of making a false premise, at least have the grapes to show me the data that I am wrong.
There are NUMEROUS people discussing social security and I'd bet almost every candidate for president has (or will have) it mentioned in their platform. That is not Mark Steyn's argument above, he is not accusing people of not discussing it, he is accusing them of becoming dependent upon it.
If you don't get rid of it, then how can you prevent the children from becoming dependent upon the evil communitarianism of European-style statism???
-
It is not a false premise.
Sure it is. We have a horde of social programs, and a Congress looking to expand it every year with new entitlements & more programs to help "the poor" & "the children". As I've already said, just because we don't have it as bad as Europe doesn't negate the fact that year after year, regardless of which party is running things, social programs, consistently expand with more and more proposed.
There are NUMEROUS people discussing social security and I'd bet almost every candidate for president has (or will have) it mentioned in their platform.
"Discussing" is NOT PROPOSING. "Discussing" is NOT FIXING
That is not Mark Steyn's argument above,
It most certainly is a cornerstone to it. You have leftist Dems using "for the children" in nearly every stump speech or when a microphone is in front of them, portraying how those mean nasty Republicans & Bush are condemning the children to misery & poor health, with the monies supposedly going instead to defend our country, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room, that of the insidiously increasing amount obligation by those same "children" to pay for the ever growing nanny state, with SS & Medicare being the closest to collapse
-
Whe have a horde of social programs
Such as? What is our spending per GDP relative to Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand? What is our poverty rate in comparison? Homelessness? Hunger?
You bring the accusation, let's see the data.
"Discussing" is NOT PROPOSING. "Discussing" is NOT FIXING
Discussing is the first part of the solution. The problem is estimated to hit home in 2041, so it is not exactly a crisis to be averted at this very moment. That means we have time to think, discuss, and properly execute a strategy that meets with public approval.
There is no need to get into Act First - Think Later mode.
all the while ignoring the elephant in the room, that of the insidiously increasing amount obligation by those same "children" to pay for the ever growing nanny state, with SS & Medicare being the closest to collapse
Oh please. "Ever growing nanny state" - bullshit. The only reason we have any growth there is because your president and your party voted to have a prescription drug benefit for the wealthiest subset of the population. If we get socialized healthcare, the expense of all of medical coverage will decrease dramatically.
I'm not a big fan of the Democrats playing politics with "the children" but it is no different than the Republicans playing politicis with "the troops."
That doesn't mean you and Steyn can come here and bald face lie about the condition of the United States welfare state.
-
The only reason we have any growth there is because your president and your party voted to have a prescription drug benefit for the wealthiest subset of the population.
Does that mean granny no longer eats cat food?
What's with all the anger JS?
-
Apologies all.
I spent the weekend at a battered women's shelter and a homeless men's shelter, doing work as well as seeing how things run. I was fortunate enough to talk with a lot of the people too.
I'm not really all that enamored of the "safety net" or the people who argue about great of a job Americans do at taking care of their poor.
Seeing homeless children is truly one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. In this country the poorest of the poor seem to be avoided, they're something you don't talk about. I've even heard some people claim that in America the poor have cable, a car, etc (trust me, that's a massive lie).
But yeah, I owe apologies. I have been a bit of an ass today. I apologize. :-[
I'll sit back and watch what other people write for a while.
-
It seems to be Mark Steyn's theory that if the Frost family were to divest itself of its two "surplus" cars and sell its only investment property, and maybe the family home as well, it would have enough money to pay for their kids' medical treatments.
By now we should be familiar with the right wing's SOP of carefully selected facts, half-truths and outright lies skillfully combined to come to a "logical conclusion" which is completely at odds with everything that common sense and real life are telling us.
Let's look at the "premium" vehicles they own. A new CHEVY is a "premium" vehicle? Bwahahahahaha. I checked the prices on new Chevy SUV's against other brands. No way is a Chevy SUV a premium anything. Notice how careful Steyn is to tell you the Chevy is "new" while saying ab-so-loot-lee nuthin about the age or condition of the other two vehicles. Wanna bet neither one a them's a "premium" vehicle? For all we know at this point they could both be 12-year-old rust-buckets.
Nor is Steyn interested in whether both the husband and wife each need a vehicle for their work. Maybe only ONE of the vehicles is surplus, but since one's a pick-up, it might conceivably be something that is also a necessity rather than a luxury. Steyn, so keen to inform us of little details like the brands and number of vehicles owned, and the fact that one of them is new, is remarkably silent on all other details that would assist his readers in determining for themselves whether the Frosts are foolish spendthrifts or careful money managers. IMHO, that was no accident.
Also the residence and the commercial property with the "combined value" of $400K. Combined value of the unencumbered equity or the combined value of both properties BEFORE taking off what's owing for mortgage principal, interest and taxes? Again, Steyn is silent. IMHO, conveniently so. Most properties ARE encumbered by mortgages, and in an era of declining prices are virtually unsaleable. Don't matter to Steyn, though - - in order to maximize the wealth of the uber-rich Republicans who set the policies and provide the financing and leadership for the Republican Party, he's willing to fuck a hard-working family like the Frosts right up the ass.
"Your kids need health care and medicines? Hey, no problem, sell your "premium" (LOL) cars, sell your fucking home. Sell the commercial property you own too. Bad time to sell? Tough shit. Like I care? I'm a fuckin Republican, I don't HAVE to care."
Why a guy should have to dump his home and sole realty investment as well as the family cars to provide medical care for his sick children, when a universal health-care coverage scheme is within the reach of the American people is totally beyond me. What's even more outrageous, we don't even know if by liquidating everything he owns, for the greater glory and enrichment of his health-care providers and the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Frost would STILL be able to pay for his kids' well-being. What's next? Is Mrs. Frost good-looking enough to turn a few tricks to keep the doctors and Big Pharma happy for a few more years of the kids' lives?
No, I don't think Bush is making war on children. He's making war on families, children included.
-
The Social Security System cannot be saved in its present form.
This is a fact and it doesn't depend on any decision that can be made .
Social Security will either shrink or collapse OR gather in more contributions.
Gathering in more contributions will delay the shrink or collapse without really preventing it.
Estimates of its running out in 2041 depend on haveing the good economy we have now the entire time , this seems unlikely to me.
What seems likely to me is a period of high unemployment causeing the collapse to occur immediately, with snowballing effects as one collapse drags down another part of the economy and then another and then another.
I guess we will have another great depression only this time we will all have computers to gripe about it with.
-
You (plane) talk about SS "collapsing" as if it were an independent organic being with a life of its own, like an albino tiger or something. It is a creation of government like the U.S. Army, and like the Army it will collapse or thrive depending on whether the government of the day collects taxes and forks them over or not.
If the people of the U.S. continue to elect governments that care more about oil (oops, excuse me, about "bringing democracy" to the people of Iraq, of all places!) than they care about the American working class, then there WILL be a "collapse" of the system and it won't have funds to pay benefits to its elder citizens. However, the lucky citizens of Iraq WILL have "democracy" forced down their throats at a cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives every year and even more crippled and maimed.
When the brainwashed dumb fucks of the U.S. electorate finally awaken to what "their" government is doing to them, in sufficient numbers so that even the hundreds of thousands of votes stolen by the Republicans in every election will not be enough to tip the balance, then they WILL (finally) get a government that cares more about them than about getting a shitload of new oil wells (oops! sorry, I mean about bringing "democracy" to Iraq) and they will have the benefits that God and Franklin D. Roosevelt intended for them to have. But first they will have to perform some major housecleaning inside the Democratic Party.
-
You (plane) talk about SS "collapsing" as if it were an independent organic being with a life of its own, like an albino tiger or something. It is a creation of government like the U.S. Army, and like the Army it will collapse or thrive depending on whether the government of the day collects taxes and forks them over or not.
If the people of the U.S. continue to elect governments that care more about oil (oops, excuse me, about "bringing democracy" to the people of Iraq, of all places!) than they care about the American working class, then there WILL be a "collapse" of the system and it won't have funds to pay benefits to its elder citizens. However, the lucky citizens of Iraq WILL have "democracy" forced down their throats at a cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives every year and even more crippled and maimed.
No there is no way to produce enough money to make the SS permanantly solvent , no way at all.
If every dime that was dedicated to defense were instead dedicated to Social Security,this would merely delay the inevitable few more years.
Billions without counting (literally) have been skimmed off the Social security program all of the years that it produced a surplus , that surplus is over.
The number of people availible to contrbute is shrinking the number entitled to take a share is growing these two facts are all you need to know to understand the inevitability of collapse.
Yes it can collapse even though it is a government program .
Government is not magic.
-
<<No there is no way to produce enough money to make the SS permanantly solvent , no way at all.>>
Sure there is. Calculate what SS will need. Calculate what SS has. Subtract the latter from the former to get the shortfall. Figure out how much of the military budget will be cut and given to SS. Subtract that from the shortfall. What remains is what has to be raised from the rich by taxing their inheritances and/or their capital and finally their investment income. Voila! Problem solved.
<<If every dime that was dedicated to defense were instead dedicated to Social Security,this would merely delay the inevitable few more years.>>
I'd like to see some numbers. Otherwise that is just waffling.
<<Billions without counting (literally) have been skimmed off the Social security program all of the years that it produced a surplus , that surplus is over.
And more waffling. If it's true, the government owes the money back to the people. Or at least back to the beneficiaries of the system. No problem - - pay it back. Issue some more bonds to China. If the Chinese won't invest because they are overinvested and their original investment was squandered in Iraq, THEN I admit there might be a problem. THAT'S when some massive criminal trials ought to be held for whatever public officials looted the SS and send these guys to jail for life.
<<The number of people availible to contrbute is shrinking the number entitled to take a share is growing . . . >>
Come on, it's a surge, not a permanent upward climb. There will be a squeeze during the years of "boomer entitlement" and then the squeeze will ease up.
<<these two facts are all you need to know to understand the inevitability of collapse.>>
Come on. What you really need is numbers. Ten to one the numbers really are not on your side, but they will prove the need to raise a lot of new taxes on the rich. And sell a lot of bonds. You can do it, America. First of all, kick out the militarists from both parties and cut the "defense" budget down to one-twentieth of its present size. Keep a big reserve on hand, like Switzerland. or Israel.
-
<<No there is no way to produce enough money to make the SS permanantly solvent , no way at all.>>
Sure there is. Calculate what SS will need. Calculate what SS has. Subtract the latter from the former to get the shortfall. Figure out how much of the military budget will be cut and given to SS. Subtract that from the shortfall. What remains is what has to be raised from the rich by taxing their inheritances and/or their capital and finally their investment income. Voila! Problem solved.
Ok, calculate what SS will need to take from each contributor when there are fewer contributors than recipients.
Then calculate this over again every time that the ratio worsens.
There will come time that the SS demand is higher than the money the country makes , sometime well before that point the system will collapse.
Sell bonds?
Who was buying bonds issued by the Weimar government of Germany?
There is a limit to borrowing and that limit will be approached rapidly , and soon.
Here is a question to ponder ,How long have we been spending more on social programs than military programs?
Now subtract military retirement payments from collum B and add them to collum A.
We already spend a lot more on retrement and welfare and careing for the disabled than we do for defence , and the ratio is growing wider.
You have not suggested anything we are not already doing in a big way and it is not enough , not nearly .
The Social Security Program is doomed and this is a fact.
-
Come on, it's a surge, not a permanent upward climb. There will be a squeeze during the years of "boomer entitlement" and then the squeeze will ease up.
I m really interested in why you would think that.
Do you expect another baby boom?
Do you expect "boomers " to survive only a short time?
Do you think that the people due entitlements can wait a few years without payments?
-
<<Billions without counting (literally) have been skimmed off the Social security program all of the years that it produced a surplus , that surplus is over.
And more waffling. If it's true, the government owes the money back to the people. Or at least back to the beneficiaries of the system. No problem - - pay it back. Issue some more bonds to China. If the Chinese won't invest because they are overinvested and their original investment was squandered in Iraq, THEN I admit there might be a problem. THAT'S when some massive criminal trials ought to be held for whatever public officials looted the SS and send these guys to jail for life.
All the members of Congress since the SS system was instituted?
How about Clinton who crowed about a surplus in tax recipts , which would have been a deficit without counting the FICA recipts.
How a bout the public at large that didn't bother to do the arithmatic .
The only people not in jail will be the few who cried in the wilderness and wern't listned to, and Al Gore with his "lockbox".
-
<<Do you expect another baby boom?>>
Nope.
<<Do you expect "boomers " to survive only a short time?>>
No, but a finite time.
<<Do you think that the people due entitlements can wait a few years without payments?>>
No I don't. If there's a shortfall, it comes out of the military budget and the rich. As I said, from estate and inheritance taxes, from property taxes, and from taxes on properties held outside the U.S.A. That will be a period of time when somebody will have to be squeezed, somebody won't like it, but the government can choose between squeezing the rich or squeezing the SS beneficiaries.
If the government won't do it, the people better pick a new government. if they pick the same-ole same-ole, then they DESERVE to get fucked and stay fucked.
-
<<All the members of Congress since the SS system was instituted?>>
Nope, I'd go for those who voted to loot SS, not those who protested and voted against.
<<How about Clinton who crowed about a surplus in tax recipts , which would have been a deficit without counting the FICA recipts.>>
Nope, because crowing ain't the same thing as looting.
<<How a bout the public at large that didn't bother to do the arithmatic .>>
Nope, because it wasn't their responsibility. That's what representative government means. That's what they elected their representatives to do. If I pick someone to act for me and he robs me blind, I want that guy's ass in jail. Pure and simple. If I vote for a guy to go to Congress and be responsible for such things as my social security, I want him to BE responsible for my social security.
-
Plane, you are the last person I would believe about Social Security. You are mostly a dittohead, repeating like a large green parrot every stupid thing that Limbaugh and the rest of your ratwing mentors squawk.
Juniorbush and his useless, stupid war in Iraq is the greatest threat to SS in decades. Right now, inflation is beginning to pay for his many mistakes.
Social Security will be funded if the people demand it. Putting an end to the Iraq War will be a major step in saving Social Security from the Juniorbushies and their associated assortment of thieves and looters.
-
It's just mind-boggling. They can blow half a trillion on the war in Iraq, they can put people in space and send robot probes to other planets, but they can't "save" social security. And they seem to have no trouble at all finding people willing to believe this ludicrous crap.
Any country that loses its bullshit detector is in big trouble.
-
It's just mind-boggling. They can blow half a trillion on the war in Iraq, they can put people in space and send robot probes to other planets, but they can't "save" social security. And they seem to have no trouble at all finding people willing to believe this ludicrous crap.
Any country that loses its bullshit detector is in big trouble.
Tee, these are the people who convinced many of the working classes and poor that they need to promote tax cuts for the wealthy so that the wealthiest can begin the "trickle down effect" of supply-side economics. They convinced these people, without any evidence between points A (100% taxation) and points B (0% taxation) that Laffer's curve was a parabola and worked exactly as drawn on a paper napkin.
There are middle ages divine-right Kings who wish they had the ability to influence their peasants and serfs to give them money - willingly. They just used the time-honored tradition of brute force and threatening to throw them off their land and leave them to starve or banditry. But to actually convince people of this idiocy...one has to appreciate the Machiavellian masterstroke of pure Palpatine-like genius, even if one has no respect for neoliberalism at all.
-
It is amazing that Laffer got so much mileage out of his silly paper napkin. A true economist does his homework and has things far more convincing than a dumbass cocktail napkin.
It is incredible that the dorks and dorkettes in the Reagan administration accepted the legendary cocktail napkin as a medieval monk might accept the miraculous toebone of St Simeon Stylites or something.
Reagan began with a deficit and pumped it way out of control.
Olebush managed to hit up the Japanese and others for the cost of his mongered Iraq War, but he ran it up even higher. It took Clinton to bring it down a notch.
But to no avail, Juniorbush has run it even higher.
And CU4 actually thinks that the GOP is somehow going to be responsible. Reagan was the poster boy for irresponsible ignorant presidents until Juniorbush came along and Sumo pushed his ass off the mat, as it were.
-
<<Tee, these are the people who convinced many of the working classes and poor that they need to promote tax cuts for the wealthy so that the wealthiest can begin the "trickle down effect" of supply-side economics. They convinced these people, without any evidence between points A (100% taxation) and points B (0% taxation) that Laffer's curve was a parabola and worked exactly as drawn on a paper napkin.>>
_JS, I'm not so sure they convinced working-class America with the Laffer curve. I don't even know what it is, so how the hell would the working class? I would like to know what percentage of working class votes did go to Bush, and for what reasons? My own theory is that Bush played upon their patriotism and skillfully re-directed their latent anger and resentment away from the real causes (wage slavery to the ruling class) and towards the "enemies of America," the Arabs, the snooty French, etc. American culture has always fostered an undercurrent of violence and machismo - - men, real men, "proved themselves" by how they stood up to an "enemy," and standing up, 99 times out of 100, meant kicking ass and taking lives. All that stokes a smouldering fire of belligerence and unfocused rage, which the Republicans have a genius for exploiting. I'm sure the elections have been overanalyzed and somewhere there's an exit-poll-based explanation of how voters decided and what working-class buttons the Republicans pushed most successfully.
I think the Laffer curve and other pseudo-economic mumbo-jumbo was probably more successful with the middle class and the professionals, some of which have by now earned their way upwards and out of the middle class. It gave them a sophisticated rationale for the politics of greed and selfishness.
But bottom line, I don't really think the Bush gang convinced anyone with anything. Bottom line is they LOST the popular vote and they stole the election in the Electoral College, then used the power of incumbency to lever Bush into a second term. Either legitimately by a much smaller margin than officially indicated, or, like the first time, illegitimately again.
-
If there's a shortfall, it comes out of the military budget and the rich.
Already a smaller resource than the present demand.
The potential shortfall is infinite , but the shortfall that can cause crisis is pretty small , just a year with half payments and the colapse will commence.
If the Baby boomers would last only a short time the problem would be surmountable , unfortunately a lot of them will live longer than two years after their retirement.
-
<<All the members of Congress since the SS system was instituted?>>
Nope, I'd go for those who voted to loot SS, not those who protested and voted against.
What congressmen protested and voted against?
I doubt that there were ten.
-
Social Security will be funded if the people demand it. Putting an end to the Iraq War will be a major step in saving Social Security from the Juniorbushies and their associated assortment of thieves and looters.
I demand that YOU pay me six million dollars.
No?
Why won't it happen if I demand it severely?
-
But bottom line, I don't really think the Bush gang convinced anyone with anything. Bottom line is they LOST the popular vote and they stole the election in the Electoral College, then used the power of incumbency to lever Bush into a second term. Either legitimately by a much smaller margin than officially indicated, or, like the first time, illegitimately again.
How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?
Is there no one willing to take the case to court?
No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.
The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .
-
It's just mind-boggling. They can blow half a trillion on the war in Iraq, they can put people in space and send robot probes to other planets, but they can't "save" social security. And they seem to have no trouble at all finding people willing to believe this ludicrous crap.
Any country that loses its bullshit detector is in big trouble.
Tee, these are the people who convinced many of the working classes and poor that they need to promote tax cuts for the wealthy so that the wealthiest can begin the "trickle down effect" of supply-side economics. They convinced these people, without any evidence between points A (100% taxation) and points B (0% taxation) that Laffer's curve was a parabola and worked exactly as drawn on a paper napkin.
There are middle ages divine-right Kings who wish they had the ability to influence their peasants and serfs to give them money - willingly. They just used the time-honored tradition of brute force and threatening to throw them off their land and leave them to starve or banditry. But to actually convince people of this idiocy...one has to appreciate the Machiavellian masterstroke of pure Palpatine-like genius, even if one has no respect for neoliberalism at all.
Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.
With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.
Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.
It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .
And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.
There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.
Not even one.
-
<<[The military budget and the rich are already] a smaller resource than the present demand.>>
Please, plane, that is just ridiculous. What is the present demand? How many Americans can demand SS in 2007 and what's the average benefit each of them will demand? The combined wealth of this nation won't support it? That's nonsense. Utter nonsense. You can't show me a single study that says that raised taxes and capital taxes combined can't pay SS benefits this year or for any time into the foreseeable future - - long past the time when the "bubble" or "surge" of the baby boomers will have passed on.
<<The potential shortfall is infinite . . . >>
Also ridiculous. If the number of Americans entitled to benefits is finite and the amount of the benefit is finite, the total amount of the pay-out, let alone any short-fall, is also finite
<< . . . , but the shortfall that can cause crisis is pretty small , just a year with half payments and the colapse will commence.>>
There will never be a shortfall unless the government ALLOWS there to be a shortfall. If there is a shortfall, be it a year of half-payments, it is anyone's guess as to what the consequences will be. Personally, I think a lot of people will be motivated to take what they need by force from anyone who seems to have a lot more than he needs. Armed revolution, for want of a better world.
<<If the Baby boomers would last only a short time the problem would be surmountable , unfortunately a lot of them will live longer than two years after their retirement.>>
Whatever their life expectancy, there will be enough wealth in the country to support it - - the government will just have to find the backbone to redistribute it fairly and sensibly.
-
How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?
Is there no one willing to take the case to court?
No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.
The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .
=============================================================================
Oh ye of little memory - - the case has already BEEN to court, remember? The court split 5-4 in favour of Bush, not surprisingly since the five were conservatives appointed for their political views. Interesting enough, while the five had consistently voted AGAINST federal authorities overriding state authorities, in this one case, for some strange reason, the "conservative" five justices were opposed to allowing the Florida courts to decide how to resolve irregularities in the Florida vote, and decided this time that it was OK for a federal court to dictate local matters such as resolution of a flawed Presidential vote to the State of Florida.
People know the Court is fixed. Why would they go to all the cost and bother of litigating an election which the Court has already thrown to the Republican Party?
-
Whatever their life expectancy, there will be enough wealth in the country to support it - - the government will just have to find the backbone to redistribute it fairly and sensibly.
Why would you think this?
It is rediculous.
The number of earners is shrinking, the number of entitled is growing and there will never be a time that this will reverse unless we quit retireing (which is the same as cutting benefits).
There will definately be less than the required wealth soon even though it is impossible to project the date.
Are you not the one who statd that the Iraq War would break our economy?
The Iraq war couldtripple in expense and we could handle it , but our SS system is already much bigger than our miltary sending and is more likely to grow expontiality
-
<<Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.>>
Absolutely ridiculous.
<<With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.>>
Nice try except nobody believes money is created from nothing.
<<Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.
<<It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .>>
Bullshit. The amount it owes will grow as long as the baby boomers are collecting benefits and will start to shrink again as they die off.
<<And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.>>
Again, provided the government has the will to tax, sell bonds and cut the military budget in various combinations, there is no reason on earth why there should be any fall.
<<There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.>>
Of course there is - - the Ponzi scheme was developed to enrich Mr. Ponzi and the Social Security was developed to protect Americans. As a result the Ponzi scheme grew with no responsible oversight and the Social Security develops in full public view. Millions or maybe tens of millions of Americans have already benefited from Social Security while the number of people who ever benefited from a Ponzi scheme apart from Mr. Ponzi himself is relatively tiny.
<<Not even one.>>
That's because you're not looking.
-
How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?
Is there no one willing to take the case to court?
No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.
The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .
=============================================================================
Oh ye of little memory - - the case has already BEEN to court, remember? The court split 5-4 in favour of Bush, not surprisingly since the five were conservatives appointed for their political views. Interesting enough, while the five had consistently voted AGAINST federal authorities overriding state authorities, in this one case, for some strange reason, the "conservative" five justices were opposed to allowing the Florida courts to decide how to resolve irregularities in the Florida vote, and decided this time that it was OK for a federal court to dictate local matters such as resolution of a flawed Presidential vote to the State of Florida.
People know the Court is fixed. Why would they go to all the cost and bother of litigating an election which the Court has already thrown to the Republican Party?
There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.
The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.
Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.
Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.
-
<<The potential shortfall is infinite . . . >>
Also ridiculous. If the number of Americans entitled to benefits is finite and the amount of the benefit is finite, the total amount of the pay-out, let alone any short-fall, is also finite
Well in the sense that the human population ofthe Earth is finite I suppose.
One need not be a citizen to qualify , one need not be old , one need not be present in the US at any time.
Everyone involved in the system is either going to die young or take some money out.
For most of us who have not retired yet ,we will take out less than we put in, so a mattress would have served us better.
-
<<The number of earners is shrinking, the number of entitled is growing and there will never be a time that this will reverse unless we quit retireing (which is the same as cutting benefits).>>
That is patent nonsense, plane. The number of earners is shrinking but the profits of the rich and the corporations are growing as are their assets here and abroad. These are all subject to seizure and taxation. America has enormous wealth and that wealth invested all over the world produces enormous earnings. Time to spread some of it around a little more equitably. Moreover, the nnumber of entitlements will not continue growing. After a time it will begin shrinking.
<<There will definately be less than the required wealth soon even though it is impossible to project the date.>>
There will never be a time when American wealth and income will be insufficient to support its retired workers. To prove your case, you would have to have calculated the needs of the system (number of claimants times average benefit) and then shown that the total profits and earnings of the population is insufficient. That the capital of the nation is insufficient. There are no such studies. The idea is preposterous.
<<Are you not the one who statd that the Iraq War would break our economy?>>
Guilty as charged, My Lord. WOULD, as in "would if allowed to continue." It will not be allowed to continue. As was Viet Nam, the war will be abandoned when the drain on the economy comes too close to the point of no return.
<<The Iraq war couldtripple in expense and we could handle it , but our SS system is already much bigger than our miltary sending and is more likely to grow expontiality>>
It's ridiculous to speak of exponential growth here. There is no exponential growth of population even with the baby boom, and the baby boom is what the coming generation of benefit recipients will consist of. Incidentally you are wrong about what you could handle in war costs too - - you can't even handle the present rate of expenditure, which is why the plug will be pulled on this war. Triple you definitely could not handle, not because the money isn't there but because the people would rebel if taxed for the increase, especially a triple increasel
-
Plane, you are the last person I would believe about Social Security. You are mostly a dittohead, repeating like a large green parrot every stupid thing that Limbaugh and the rest of your ratwing mentors squawk.
I challenge you to find Limbaugh saying the same thing in the same words , previous , not post , when he is copying me that doesn't count.
Get energetic and disprove some of these things if you can , simply pointing out that lots of people agree with me doesn't discourage me much.
-
<<There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.>>
Of course not. I just said that.
<<The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.>>
You are wrong again. It was a case that acknowledged flaws in the Florida vote and asked that the Florida courts be allowed to interpret the Florida legislation that specified how the Florida vote was to be conducted and in the light of that interpretation to set a remedy for the flaws that the majority of justices determined had occurred. In other words, the court was being asked to do what the conservative judges had previously said should be done - - that state courts should set the terms for the observance and rectification of state-legislated proceedings. Only this time, the "conservatives" decided that the state courts should NOT determine such things any more.
<<Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.>>
Al Gore had no reason to complain about the law before the election, his complaint was over how the state of Florida had conducted the election and enforced or failed to enforce the law.
<<Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.>>
The "liars" who complained about voter exclusion had their case extensively documented in the Vanity Fair article by three investigative journalists who put together an unanswerable case for voter exclusion. Vote rigging - - I'm not sure how votes are rigged, or even what the term means, it appears that the main factor in the Republicans' successful theft of the election was voter exclusion, as documented. If there are complaints about "rigging" not related to voter exclusion, they may also have been part of the Republican plan, but I am just not familiar enough with the topic to discuss it.
"under circumstances thta prove the complaints are lies"
LMFAO, since all the circumstances prove conclusively that the election was stolen by excluding blacks from the rolls, intimidating them in some cases by State troopers, providing faulty machines, creating long voter lineups through misallocation of polling resources in black districts, etc. The Vanity Fair article and probably many others show the conclusive evidence of election fraud. The lack of court challenges is explained by the futility as shown by the obviously biased and partisan role played by the five conservative judges in handing the election to Bush in the first place. Why would they overrule their own handiwork in a second decision?
-
<<Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.>>
Absolutely ridiculous.
<<With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.>>
Nice try except nobody believes money is created from nothing.
/////////That is important , what creates money in your estimation?///////////
<<Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.
<<It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .>>
Bullshit. The amount it owes will grow as long as the baby boomers are collecting benefits and will start to shrink again as they die off.
I am a late baby boomer myself , born in 59.
The baby boom is a fifteen to twenty year phenomenon depending on how you count it , with a big surge to start it.
The Die off you are anticipating will not bring relief till the presently 62 reach 75 or so.
This is many times the length of time that a shortfall can be supported .
My guess is a six month period of high unemployment will cause the collapse .
<<And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.>>
Again, provided the government has the will to tax, sell bonds and cut the military budget in various combinations, there is no reason on earth why there should be any fall.
Oh I doubt not that a government with the will to tax can be elected I doubt much that taxes can be raised enough while the tax base is rapidly shrinking to cover a demand that is rapidly growing.
<<There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.>>
Of course there is - - the Ponzi scheme was developed to enrich Mr. Ponzi and the Social Security was developed to protect Americans. As a result the Ponzi scheme grew with no responsible oversight and the Social Security develops in full public view. Millions or maybe tens of millions of Americans have already benefited from Social Security while the number of people who ever benefited from a Ponzi scheme apart from Mr. Ponzi himself is relatively tiny.
<<Not even one.>>
That's because you're not looking.
On the contrary I am looking and I am seeing .
The similarity with a Ponzi scheme is perfect ,skimming did occur, though not to benefit a single individual but the entirety of the US Government , the skimming amounted to 100% of all recits not required for immediate payouts, in the full view of the public not a single dime has ever been set aside to deal with so much as a single days worth of shortfall.
You have not pointed out a difference , but its very chief similarity.
-
<<Get energetic and disprove some of these things if you can , simply pointing out that lots of people agree with me doesn't discourage me much.>>
That's a laugh. Why don't YOU get energetic and put together the facts and figures showing the total claims predicted, the resources available to satisfy them, the shortfall, and the inability of the existing or projected tax base to satisfy the short-fall with a tax on the rich? So far all I've heard from you are blanket allegations that the sky is falling, there isn't enough this for covering that and absolutely no factual back-up whatsoever. Although words like "exponential" and "infinite" were freely bandied about, I don't think they qualify as factual support for your theories.
-
<<There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.>>
Of course not. I just said that.
<<The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.>>
You are wrong again. It was a case that acknowledged flaws in the Florida vote and asked that the Florida courts be allowed to interpret the Florida legislation that specified how the Florida vote was to be conducted and in the light of that interpretation to set a remedy for the flaws that the majority of justices determined had occurred. In other words, the court was being asked to do what the conservative judges had previously said should be done - - that state courts should set the terms for the observance and rectification of state-legislated proceedings. Only this time, the "conservatives" decided that the state courts should NOT determine such things any more.
<<Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.>>
Al Gore had no reason to complain about the law before the election, his complaint was over how the state of Florida had conducted the election and enforced or failed to enforce the law.
<<Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.>>
The "liars" who complained about voter exclusion had their case extensively documented in the Vanity Fair article by three investigative journalists who put together an unanswerable case for voter exclusion. Vote rigging - - I'm not sure how votes are rigged, or even what the term means, it appears that the main factor in the Republicans' successful theft of the election was voter exclusion, as documented. If there are complaints about "rigging" not related to voter exclusion, they may also have been part of the Republican plan, but I am just not familiar enough with the topic to discuss it.
"under circumstances thta prove the complaints are lies"
LMFAO, since all the circumstances prove conclusively that the election was stolen by excluding blacks from the rolls, intimidating them in some cases by State troopers, providing faulty machines, creating long voter lineups through misallocation of polling resources in black districts, etc. The Vanity Fair article and probably many others show the conclusive evidence of election fraud. The lack of court challenges is explained by the futility as shown by the obviously biased and partisan role played by the five conservative judges in handing the election to Bush in the first place. Why would they overrule their own handiwork in a second decision?
If there was anyhing more than fantasy involved there would be persons with standig to sue, and why would they not?
-
<<You have not pointed out a diffrence , but its very cheif simularity.>>
You are correct. I owe you a difference.
Here's a big one: When the game was up with Mr. Ponzi, the game was up. Mr. Ponzi lacked the taxation powers of the Federal Government. He could not approach anybody and tax their income and their property to pay for the shortfall in his scheme.
Consider now by way of contrast the Federal Government. Even had they looted the funds to the last penny - - something which I find very hard to believe - - they have not only deeper pockets than Mr. Ponzi ever did, but unlike poor old Mr. P., they can also reach into the pockets of every American citizen and take what they need.
That's why a Ponzi scheme was deeply disappointing to most of the people who believed in it, whereas Social Security will never disappoint anyone.
-
<<If there was anyhing more than fantasy involved there would be persons with standig to sue, and why would they not?>>
Why not? I just TOLD you why not - - the case would come to the Supreme Court at the end of the day and the Supreme Court has already given ample indication to anyone with eyes to see where it would stand on that issue. It's a Republican, partisan court.
Your question is very naive. It's like asking, if Hitler was really arresting Jews for no reason and stealing all of their property, why didn't any of them take him to court? I mean, COME ON.
-
<<Get energetic and disprove some of these things if you can , simply pointing out that lots of people agree with me doesn't discourage me much.>>
That's a laugh. Why don't YOU get energetic and put together the facts and figures showing the total claims predicted, the resources available to satisfy them, the shortfall, and the inability of the existing or projected tax base to satisfy the short-fall with a tax on the rich? So far all I've heard from you are blanket allegations that the sky is falling, there isn't enough this for covering that and absolutely no factual back-up whatsoever. Although words like "exponential" and "infinite" were freely bandied about, I don't think they qualify as factual support for your theories.
This is a fact the number of persons requireing payment is riseing.
This is a fact the number paying in is shrinking.
These two trends are near the point at which the lines cross at this very point in time.
If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.
Already the Social entitlement dwarfs our military spending , this problem could swallow the Pentagon like a pill.
-
<<If there was anyhing more than fantasy involved there would be persons with standig to sue, and why would they not?>>
Why not? I just TOLD you why not - - the case would come to the Supreme Court at the end of the day and the Supreme Court has already given ample indication to anyone with eyes to see where it would stand on that issue. It's a Republican, partisan court.
Your question is very naive. It's like asking, if Hitler was really arresting Jews for no reason and stealing all of their property, why didn't any of them take him to court? I mean, COME ON.
With the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?
There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.
-
<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>
Of course I understand those two simple facts. What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is: AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?
-
<<Whith the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?>>
Oh, they could probably win in a state court. The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.
<<There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.>>
No, unfortunately the accusation is the truth. It is the denial of the accusation that is a lie.
-
<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>
Of course I understand those two simple facts. What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is: AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?
There is nothing that will ever re-expand the shrinking worker base , of course if we annex our neighboring countrys we can reset the clock with their youth butthat only resets the clock and gains a few years , not even does it do that if we have a period of unemployment after the annexation.
You state that the boomers will die off again , makeing the problem temporary , but how long will that tae compared to the time required for a beaurocracy to loose the faith of its people?
I doubt that the 2041 estimate is anything other than wildly optomistic ince it is a pojection of the present trends and we have already set a record for the longest good economy in our history.
Depending on never haveing a year of high unemployment for the next thirty three years is more than the usually optomistic.
And how would the Social Seurity system deal with a few mounths of high unemployment?
-
<<Whith the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?>>
Oh, they could probably win in a state court. The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.
No , it isn't , and even if it were the poitical benefit would be the demonstration of the truth , if it were the truth.
<<There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.>>
No, unfortunately the accusation is the truth. It is the denial of the accusation that is a lie.
Your faith is strong , but it is placed poorly.
If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?
-
<<If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?>>
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know any of them by name. The reporters for Vanity Fair certainly do, because they told numerous stories of blacks excluded unfairly from the polls. By the purging of the rolls, where "errors" were made in (I think) about 100,000 cases, almost all blacks. Funny thing, though, almost no Hispanics were wrongly identified as felons.
I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a minor point - - I believe I spoke of blacks being excluded from voting, not "driven off from the polls." Again the Vanity Fair reporters had numerous stories of how they were excluded, many on their way to the polls being stopped by state troopers who had picked that day out of all 365 in the year to conduct random traffic stops to detect forged driver licences. Funny thing, though - - that the day they picked for the "random stops" was election day. Funny too how most of the people they stopped that election day were blacks, in black areas.
My daughter's a journalist who has written for American magazines like Vanity Fair. So I'm very familiar with the fact-checking routine and how far the editors go in reviewing reporters' notes, tapes and signed statements before going to press. There are names, there are statements, there is evidence of which the actual magazine stories are just the tip of the iceberg.
So you better believe, whether I know them or not, there ARE people with names and faces who are black and who were excluded from the polls deliberately as part of the Republicans' successful effort to steal the Florida vote.
-
<<If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?>>
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know any of them by name. The reporters for Vanity Fair certainly do, because they told numerous stories of blacks excluded unfairly from the polls. By the purging of the rolls, where "errors" were made in (I think) about 100,000 cases, almost all blacks. Funny thing, though, almost no Hispanics were wrongly identified as felons.
I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a minor point - - I believe I spoke of blacks being excluded from voting, not "driven off from the polls." Again the Vanity Fair reporters had numerous stories of how they were excluded, many on their way to the polls being stopped by state troopers who had picked that day out of all 365 in the year to conduct random traffic stops to detect forged driver licences. Funny thing, though - - that the day they picked for the "random stops" was election day. Funny too how most of the people they stopped that election day were blacks, in black areas.
My daughter's a journalist who has written for American magazines like Vanity Fair. So I'm very familiar with the fact-checking routine and how far the editors go in reviewing reporters' notes, tapes and signed statements before going to press. There are names, there are statements, there is evidence of which the actual magazine stories are just the tip of the iceberg.
So you better believe, whether I know them or not, there ARE people with names and faces who are black and who were excluded from the polls deliberately as part of the Republicans' successful effort to steal the Florida vote.
You are comeing close to proof that you hae been lied to by a very specific sorce.
There is nothing to prevent suit in a state court and the political payoff would be immense ,there is every reason to do it but it lacks one thing .
A real person who was so treated .
-
Didn't you get the memo, Plane. It works like this, a lack of proof, a lack of evidence, a lack of examples is proof positive :-\
-
<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>
Of course I understand those two simple facts. What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is: AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?
"AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph""where is the proof"
That they cross is the proof , that they can't recross for many years is the downfall of the Social Security system.
If the government tries to get out of this problem by simply printing more money , they will have to roll the presses faster than Wiemar Germany ever tried to the WWI war debt of Germany is small in comparison to the scale of this.
If the Government tries to raise taxes enough to cover the short fall they will cripple the economy and the resulting high unemployment will just accelerate the process.
I am 48 but I would eagerly opt out of the Social security for the sake of the single decade of 6% benefit, I am very confident that I could look out for myself better and they can keep the difference they owe me to alleviate the problem a tiny bit.
-
The similarity with a Ponzi scheme is perfect ,skimming did occur, though not to benefit a single individual but the entirety of the US Government , the skimming amounted to 100% of all recits not required for immediate payouts, in the full view of the public not a single dime has ever been set aside to deal with so much as a single days worth of shortfall.
Actually, that's not true. Under Clinton and a Republican House, an actual "set aside" was created for SS, to be added to yearly. However, last time I checked, they had only set aside about 400 million. Not nearly enough to keep the system going for any length of time, but at least it was a start.
-
The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.
No, they can't. The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.
And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. The Supreme Court normally only reviews cases that have different rulings in multiple Federal courts. At most, one Federal court would review Florida cases, so there would be no disagreement between Federal courts, and a very slim chance that the Supreme Court would even take it on.
-
The similarity with a Ponzi scheme is perfect ,skimming did occur, though not to benefit a single individual but the entirety of the US Government , the skimming amounted to 100% of all recits not required for immediate payouts, in the full view of the public not a single dime has ever been set aside to deal with so much as a single days worth of shortfall.
Actually, that's not true. Under Clinton and a Republican House, an actual "set aside" was created for SS, to be added to yearly. However, last time I checked, they had only set aside about 400 million. Not nearly enough to keep the system going for any length of time, but at least it was a start.
Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?
No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?
The set aside is imaginary.
-
Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?
No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?
The set aside is imaginary.
Cash. In an interest bearing account.
-
<<There is nothing to prevent suit in a state court and the political payoff would be immense ,there is every reason to do it but it lacks one thing .>>
That's absolutely ridiculous, the payoff would be another Republican "win" in the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. Nobody who isn't already convinced of the fraudulent nature of the first SCOTUS election decision would be convinced by the second and millions of dollars would be wasted. You also have to factor in the chickenshit thinking of Algore, who decided to concede the election and accept the SCOTUS decision, thinking that he would be praised for putting unity of the country above personal political ambition. Why on earth would the Democrats, having already decided (wrongly IMHO) to take the high road, suddenly abandon the first decision, take the so-called low road, certain only that it would lead to a second defeat in a crooked SCOTUS?
Your expectations that the Democrats should take their case to the Supreme Court after a clear and unmistakeable demonstration of what they could expect from that Court are ludicrous. Particularly your mythical "immense" political payoff. The only payoff they could have expected was a demonstration of partisan bias from SCOTUS. But hey guess what? They already HAD that.
I'm glad you don't write plays, plane, if you did, you'd write a second act that demonstrated the exact same thing as the first act, and think you had scored and "immense payoff" with your second act. There are no payoffs when you repeat what you've already said, plane.
-
<<Didn't you get the memo, Plane. It works like this, a lack of proof, a lack of evidence, a lack of examples is proof positive >>
Unfortunately for the crypto-fascist liars and bullshitters, the press is full of proof, evidence and examples. The Vanity Fair article that I had cited and that Lanya was good enough to bring up being only one example.
Here is how lying Republican bullshit artists operate, though. No matter how many examples, how much evidence and how much proof is publicly available, they complain about a lack thereof as if none of it ever existed.
The only liars in this affair are those who repeatedly deny, not only the fact that the Republicans stole the 2000 election, but go further in their lies and claim after repeated production of evidence, that there is "NO" evidence in support. Truly pathetic, but what can you do except confront them on each and every one of their lies.
-
<<No, they [SCOTUS] can't [review a Florida State Court decision on Florida election procedures.] The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.>>
I guess you must have been on a long vacation in another galaxy after the 2000 Presidential election. The SCOTUS not only could but did take on a matter that was arguably out of their very jurisdiction, again due to the conservative majority. In fact, the court specifically overrode jurisdictional objections in order to hear the case, so anxious were they to throw the election to Bush.
<<And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. >>
Yeah. It's very unlikely that the Supreme Court would take on a case that challenges the legitimacy of the "Presidency" of the very man they already prostituted themselves for in the first place.
What utter nonsense.
-
The only liars in this affair are those who repeatedly deny, not only the fact that the Republicans stole the 2000 election, but go further in their lies and claim after repeated production of evidence, that there is "NO" evidence in support. Truly pathetic, but what can you do except confront them on each and every one of their lies.
ROFL. Tee's apparently auditioning for a slot on a new version of the Gong Show
-
Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?
No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?
The set aside is imaginary.
Cash. In an interest bearing account.
Oh ? I may be misinformed . Got link?
-
<<No, they [SCOTUS] can't [review a Florida State Court decision on Florida election procedures.] The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.>>
I guess you must have been on a long vacation in another galaxy after the 2000 Presidential election. The SCOTUS not only could but did take on a matter that was arguably out of their very jurisdiction, again due to the conservative majority. In fact, the court specifically overrode jurisdictional objections in order to hear the case, so anxious were they to throw the election to Bush.
<<And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. >>
Yeah. It's very unlikely that the Supreme Court would take on a case that challenges the legitimacy of the "Presidency" of the very man they already prostituted themselves for in the first place.
What utter nonsense.
I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.
Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?
-
<<I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.>>
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote. The Supreme Court of course would not prevent the Florida State Court from hearing the case. Whatever the Florida Court ruled would be appealed by the losing side. When the case got up to SCOTUS level, SCOTUS would uphold a Florida ruling if favourable to Bush and strike down a Florida ruling if unfavourable to their man. In other words, there is no point in Gore supporters bringing a claim in the State court - - either they will lose in the State court or they will lose in the SCOTUS.
<<Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?>>
I would start with the Vanity Fair article by three investigative reporters, then find other articles from other publications that cover the subject.
-
<<I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.>>
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote. The Supreme Court of course would not prevent the Florida State Court from hearing the case. Whatever the Florida Court ruled would be appealed by the losing side. When the case got up to SCOTUS level, SCOTUS would uphold a Florida ruling if favourable to Bush and strike down a Florida ruling if unfavourable to their man. In other words, there is no point in Gore supporters bringing a claim in the State court - - either they will lose in the State court or they will lose in the SCOTUS.
<<Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?>>
I would start with the Vanity Fair article by three investigative reporters, then find other articles from other publications that cover the subject.
Gotta link?
If there were a leg for the case to stand on it would be in court, much milder and more hopeless things are tried , even cases with fewer freinds in the public and politial relms get their day in court .
Haveing you day in court has a value even when you are not likely to win.
No ,there are no actual persons with standing ,and this is proven beyond all reasonable doubts by their absense in a court that would at the very least net them a million dollar book and movie deal.
-
Haveing you day in court has a value even when you are not likely to win. No ,there are no actual persons with standing ,and this is proven beyond all reasonable doubts by their absense in a court that would at the very least net them a million dollar book and movie deal.
Lack of proof/examples is proof postive ;)
-
<<Lack of proof/examples is proof postive>>
Yeah, but the problem with that theory is that there is plenty of proof and plenty of examples in the Vanity Fair article. The problem is with plane's theory that those whose votes were stolen didn't sue. And the problem with THAT is that these folks would have to be total idiots to bring their case to be ultimately decided by a SCOTUS which has already abundantly made clear its devotion to the Republican Party and the fascism for which it stands.
-
<<Lack of proof/examples is proof postive>>
Yeah, but the problem with that theory is that there is plenty of proof and plenty of examples in the Vanity Fair article.
Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....oh wait.
Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......oh wait.
Under "desperation" in wikipedia is a reference to "see any Tee rebuttal, located in 3DHS"
-
<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>
No. [sighs patiently] I already did explain why these cases will never go to court. The conservative majority on SCOTUS, which will ultimately decide any case brought in the U.S.A., has already been sold out to Bush and the Republican Party. Remember?
<<Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......>>
Uh, NO, actually. Again, those reports had to do with the votes stolen by defective ballots and defective voting machines. Nothing at all to do with the major mechanism of stealing the election, which was the active disenfranchisement of black voters, through (a) actively purging false "felons" from the rolls and (b) under-equipping poll stations in black districts and (c) actively intimidating blacks on their ways to the polls. None of these were examined in the "throng" of "outlets" that dealt primarily with the defective voting machine and defective ballot aspects of the stolen election.
-
<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>
No. [sighs patiently] I already did explain why these cases will never go to court.
and Plane (& Ami) explained how they easily could
The conservative majority on SCOTUS
Which is a LIE right there, since at the time, there were only 3 conservative judges, 4 liberal judges, and 2 moderates, who have ruled in both ideologial directions. The support of abortion is in which ideological corner again? RvW was ruled in which direction again? And O'Conner ruled which way again? So that above lie you can largely dispense with, since if there was any "majority" it was a liberal one
-
<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>
No. [sighs patiently] I already did explain why these cases will never go to court. The conservative majority on SCOTUS, which will ultimately decide any case brought in the U.S.A., has already been sold out to Bush and the Republican Party. Remember?
<<Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......>>
Uh, NO, actually. Again, those reports had to do with the votes stolen by defective ballots and defective voting machines. Nothing at all to do with the major mechanism of stealing the election, which was the active disenfranchisement of black voters, through (a) actively purging false "felons" from the rolls and (b) under-equipping poll stations in black districts and (c) actively intimidating blacks on their ways to the polls. None of these were examined in the "throng" of "outlets" that dealt primarily with the defective voting machine and defective ballot aspects of the stolen election.
You convince me further that this is an imaginary group , if there were indeed thousands of offended and disenfranchised persons , you , of all persons , would know the name of one of them.
I thought it likely that a small number of ligitimate cases could be dug up , but having not even one is a pleasant surprise.
-
<<You convince me further that this is an imaginary group , if there were indeed thousands of offended and disenfranchised persons , you , of all persons , would know the name of one of them.>>
Maybe you should read what I post a little more carefully before it "convinces" you of the opposite of what I write. I in fact pointed out that an article from Vanity Fair (which Lanya posted in this group) did refer by name to specific black voters disenfranchised in the 2000 election by the dirty tricks of the Jeb Bush administration, specifically in purging the rolls of falsely-identified "felons" all of whom just happened to be black. The only "imaginary" factor in this entire discussion would appear to be your delusional fantasy that nobody has identified by name any of the disenfranchised. But I would expect lies as barefaced as that to come from sirs. I'm a little disappointed in you, plane. I hope it's just something that you overlooked. I will repeat it again: The Vanity Fair article named names. Got it?
-
<<You convince me further that this is an imaginary group , if there were indeed thousands of offended and disenfranchised persons , you , of all persons , would know the name of one of them.>>
Maybe you should read what I post a little more carefully before it "convinces" you of the opposite of what I write. I in fact pointed out that an article from Vanity Fair (which Lanya posted in this group) did refer by name to specific black voters disenfranchised in the 2000 election by the dirty tricks of the Jeb Bush administration, specifically in purging the rolls of falsely-identified "felons" all of whom just happened to be black. The only "imaginary" factor in this entire discussion would appear to be your delusional fantasy that nobody has identified by name any of the disenfranchised. But I would expect lies as barefaced as that to come from sirs. I'm a little disappointed in you, plane. I hope it's just something that you overlooked. I will repeat it again: The Vanity Fair article named names. Got it?
Got link?
-
Nope. If you recall, I had the mag in print and had quoted from it here but never was able to turn up an on-line version. Then Lanya found the article on-line and posted it to the group. So it's in 3DHS archives somewhere.