PeterDavid.net

Sorry. Just too damn depressed to comment. And tired. Depressed and tired. I'm keeping the television off and the radio on sports blather all day. Don't want to run the risk of the depression deepening by hearing the Smirking Chimp congratulate himself. Ugh. Depressed, tired and, I guess, still angry.

The only news coverage I want to see is the Turn Your Back on Bush folks silently protesting. One, because I hope there's a lot of them. Two, to see if the media will even show them.

Of course, they're all probably being herded into the "free speech zone" 2 miles off the course of the parade.

4 years ago I made the mistake of saying "how bad can things get? It's only 4 years."

I won't be making that mistake again. I'll spend my time battening down the hatches and hoping we can weather the storm of things to come.

Oh, I see. More Americans to tax is the new fix for social security. I'm glad to see you've become anti-abortion. That'd give us millions more citizens to tax!

There is only one problem I see with PADs posting, he's assuming that "fixing" social security is the true purpose of juniors reasoning and not just the lip service excuse. As Iraq was about getting the oil, fixing social securty appears to e about linning the pockets of his cronies with $$ $2 to $5 billion dollars to be exact.

Anyone see CNN yesterday where it was revealed nearly all of the commerative crap was made in China that Bush and cronies are peddling for this Black Thursday. Commerate the selling out of America, buy chinese! Argh.

BJP

I can't tell you how terrified I am about the next four years. I mean actually scared of our government to the point that I'm looking into the prospects of leaving. I really think that we're not but a stones throw away from internment camps popping back up. Bush terrifies me. I think he's the worst an American can become. Having just successfully given Cancer a beatdown...I can tell you what a mess Social Security is. I was turned down help during my illness because of my age and level of education. I guess if you have a college degree, your immune to the effects of severe chemo and radiation theropy. The truth is our health care system is a joke. I had cancer for almost two years, but couldn't do anything about it because I couldn't afford the insurance. I obviously finally got it together...but I lost almost three years (including therapy time) worth of my life to it. Now that I'm healthy again I'm trying to get my life back together...our government has been no help. I should feel great about having gotten through it on my own. Instead I'm depressed that my life is a shambles because of it. It didn't have to be...I could have...should have gotten help. The money is mine...It's been taken out of my paychecks since I was thirteen. It ain't gonna be there when I retire. I should have gotten it now...when I needed it...that is what it's there for. Being a Florida resident, I sent an e-mail to Jeb's office...and got absolutely no help from them either. I had to sell my car to pay rent one month. I had to move from a three bedroom apartment to a one...while I was sick!! These past few years have made me ashamed to be American. This is my country...I beleive in the American way. Just not the way that America has become. Thanks Bush and Company.

One thing to also consider, aren't any children of people killed in government service eligible to start drawing from social security at the time of the parents death. Fewer people dying, less money being paid out.

Just the fact that this is the most expensive innauguration ever is enough to make one ill. And nevermind that "it's all paid for by private donations" crap. Private donations aren't paying for the security, unless taxpayer's contributions are being classified as "private donations" these days. Neither are all the salaries of all the federal workers in the DC area, who have been on paid administrative leave since around noon yesterday. That's thousands of people being paid by taxpayer money to sit at home for 11-16 hours instead of working so Bush can have his party. Not to mention the delay experienced in the regional offices as they have to wait nearly 2 days to interact with their HQ administrations.

But I forget. America is safer today....

I'm afraid I agree with Greg Martin...making an argument like that is uncomfortably close to similar, "pro-life" arguments.

Now, as a foreigner I don't have any real understanding of your social security system, but I've been under the impression that the idea of it being "broken" is highly debatable at best.

You could try the reverse approach and implement a draft for ages 60+. That would also solve the impending SS crisis.

I understand your frustration with the policies an administration you do not like, but the convoluted logic of tying military deaths to the Social Security issue doesn't make any sense.

One could use the same logic and say, to solve the Social Security crisis (if there even is one), we should stop driving, or stop smoking, or stop drinking, or stop swimming, or stop rock climbing, or stop overeating, etc. etc.

http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf

Are deaths due to these other causes any less significant or less tragic?

Keep in mind, I made a career of the military, and every military death reported in Southwest Asia eats away at my gut. But to constantly use the war deaths as fodder to push a variety of other (usually unrelated) political agendas just cheapens the sacrifices of those who perished abroad.

Social Security isn't broken, although many would argue that it isn't needed. What it is, is facing impending underfunding. Currently, we pay about a 6% income tax, up to $90,000 of income. At current rates, it is estimated that the SS fund will start to pay out more in benefits than it takes in in taxes/revenue sometime in the next 10 years. It's estimated that the fund will run out, at that rate, in an additional 10 years after that.

So, the only thing really *wrong* with the system is that it's facing an underfunding problem. Bush has stated that he refuses to raise the tax limit, effectively placing a larger proportionate SS burden on the middle class while exempting the upper class, while at the same time stating that he wants to allow a portion of that 6% to go back to taxpayers so they can invest it into private savings/retirement funds. Which, of course, will either reduce benefits paid out, or bring the underfunding issue to bear that much more quickly.

And by the way, I think PAD's toungue was loitering around his cheek a little with his suggestion....

While there are indeed several reasons not to have soldiers killed in questionable wars around the globe. Isn't it possible that the increased population from the lives spared and created would add to the drain on Social Security and make the problem even worse? Please note I'm only addressing the financial premise and am addressing no political issues whatever.

Does Condoleeza Rice remind anyone else of Lucy Van Pelt?

William:

My understanding (which begs to be corrected if wrong) is that back in 1935 or so, there were 40 workers for each retiree. Now there are 2 for each retiree. Therefore, keeping up with Social Security benefits becomes more and more difficult (because the money I pay in is [b]not[/b] for me--it's for the current retirees). Killing working age men and women (or placing them in harm's way) hurts that ratio, and removing their potential children from the equation further hurts the ratio.

I wonder, though, if the numbers killed here are big enough to make an appreciable difference in the ratio at all.

My question with Social Security (sorry if this is a bit OT) is this: If life expectancy has gone up since Social Security was founded, why has the benefit age not also gone up? Is someone who is 65 today really equally ready for retirement as someone who was 65 back in the Depression? (I realize this is probably a hot-button issue for some folks, but I'd really appreciate an education on this.)

Eric

I see nothing wrong with being anti-abortion...

and truth be told abortion has taken more American lives in the past year than this war has in the past two years. If it weren't for abortions, at the very least legalized (and thus a non-stigmatized public approach to the practice of) abortion then social security wouldn't have the same problems because the ratios at the very worst would be slightly different.

And frankly I'd cancel Social Security. I don't need it, I don't plan on needing it, and there won't be enough people to support me through it, likely. I don't want it on principle. It's just so much bueraucratic nonsense and a waste of money. "Reform" phooey. I'd be fine if Social Security broke and suddenly people my age got SS checks. Instead it's like an engine running in an enclosed garage, slowly wasting gasoline and choking off life. As it is I don't want "the government doing anything to help me". That's not its purpose and never was. "Freedom from want"... thank you President Roosevelt.... may your New Deal rot.

Thanks for the pro-life argument PAD.

ahem. well, there's nothing to say that those aborted would have been able to contribute to SS. And no, that's not a racist comment. Soldiers killed in war are highly trained individuals that are/were contributing to SS, and upon their death, their families get survivors' benefits from SS. So not only are they no longer paying into SS, but their money is also taken out of the fund.

Those aborted Americans were untrained children, many of whom would never reach working age, others who wouldn't work, and some who would work and contribute to SS, and some of *those* would also die before the age of 65, and thus prematurely remove their funds from the SS pool.

So, no, I don't find PAD's comments to be pro-life, nor do I find the "stop abortion to save SS" thinking applicable, either.

"there's nothing to say that those aborted would have been able to contribute to SS"

No? Between 1973 and 1996 there were roughly 32.5 million legal abortions in this country. My guess is that there would have been more than a couple who would have contributed to SS.

Kingbobb,
"The only thing really wrong with the system is that it's facing an underfunding problem."

First, the abilty to fund something would seem to be a MAJOR problem, but it is one that was never sufficiently addressed because too many politicians on both sides of the aisle don't like to take goodies away from their constituecies, particualarly seniors, who have grown exponentially as a group over the years.
Both in terms of raw numbers and proportion to the population. But they vote, so virtually nobody else - with exceptions of people like the late Sen. Moynihan - had the political courage to do what they all know has been necessary, and that is to change the Ponzi scheme we have had for over seven decades into something that will work when factoring in 21st century realities.
Second, the average payout on SS benefits is $790 a month. That's AVERAGE. Which, means, obviously, some receive less. Which is unacceptable. Why not "means test" benefits? Does the family with the summer home in Florida, let alone Ted Turner or Bill Gates, really deserve a Social Security check "because they put into it"?
I say absolutely not.

The money is mine...It's been taken out of my paychecks since I was thirteen. It ain't gonna be there when I retire. I should have gotten it now...when I needed it...that is what it's there for.

That's the flaw in SS. It's not yours, it's your neighbors. The Bush reform will force everyone to save 2% of their income for retirement. Even if the company matching 2% goes into your personal account, 4% savings is not enough to plan a retirement around.

The personal savings rate has fallen from 10% in 1980 to 1% today, while debt is skyrocketing. I'm in my mid-30s and I'm putting around 17.5% of my income into savings and investments, and I have almost no debt. However, there are still days I think it's not going to be enough.

The retirement/benefit age needs to be revisited, the salary caps on social security need to be lifted. That's my idea for the start of reform. Bottom line, though, no government system is going to account for everyone's needs.

Kinda missing the point, James, which is that the abortion line of thinking could come out to a wash, in that for every one that reaches a point where they can pay taxes, there are some that don't. And some that end up drawing welfare, or unemployment, or commiting crimes, sentenced to jail. And some that go on to become millionaires.

Which could pretty much end up in a wash, as far as the idea that "the aborted could save SS."

PAD's point is that soldiers killed in Iraq have an immediate impact on SS, and for every soldier killed, there isn't another one created that offsets that loss with his contribution. It's not a zero sum equation, it's a loss equation that only takes money out of the system, and puts nothing back in.

PAD,

Look, I understand that you have no respect for Bush and don't agree with his actions. But your comments, particularly in light of Bush's speech today, are just absurd.

If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception, then certainly they must give a nod toward conception that won't occur.

These two points are NOT logically connected. One example proves the point: Pro-Life advocates have no problem with someone who chooses to remain single and celibate. The pro-life belief is simply that when life begins at conception, it is not morally right to terminate that innocent life. The fact that a child was never conceived in the first place is beside the point. Most pro-lifers do not believe someone should have as many children as possible, which is what your statement would require for it to be logically true.

Your example also completely ignores a much bigger picture: You are assuming that those who died in defense of our country did not ultimately save far more lives. If the 1,300 who have died in Iraq prevent 13,000 from dying in terrorist attacks in the next 20 years, then Bush actually has done more to "save" Social Security than to harm it. The truth is, as of today, we have NOT had a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. Whether this is "luck" or the policies of Bush is beside the point -- we have not lost another 3,000 plus like we did on 9/11. To believe we can defend our freedom without any cost to life is foolish, whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not.

The reality is Bush is not conducting a revenge operation for 9/11 or a personal attack on Iraq, he is waging a war on terror in countries around the world. And there are very solid reasons to believe we are gaining ground. The book "Shadow War" has a lot of documentation of what has been accomplished. A letter published a few days ago gives reasons why we are accomplishing a lot of good in Iraq.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

I am obviously the minority on this site. But I am convinced that we are safer today with G W Bush as president.

Jim in Iowa

SS is a TAX. It goes out of your pocket, to the government, and they spend it. It's no more "yours" than other income tax that's going to pay for the war in Iraq. You have no demand right on it, and unless you can get your government to repeal that tax, you're not going to.

It was designed to protect American employees who did not have the foresight/financial acumen/plain good common sense to put a little away for retirement. Or for those who get hit hard by life's unexpected accidents. It's designed to work in conjunction with private savings and employee pensions to provide for your so-called golden years.

Like Mark L, I'm putting about 16% of my income into retirement. SS is factored into that savings. Millions of Americans have spent their whole lives saving and preparing, counting on SS to be there for them when they retire. This is why Bush says he can't cut funding.

I never said that the coming underfunding wasn't a problem...it's just not a sign that SS is broken. It works, it just needs to be adjusted to reflect today's smaller workforce.

So, no, I don't find PAD's comments to be pro-life, nor do I find the "stop abortion to save SS" thinking applicable, either.

You ignore the fact that PAD raised this very implication in his own post when he said "If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception...". This would not necessarily come out to be a wash either. The issue is how many current payers we have versus how many go on SS. If all those children had been born, they are still years from going on SS. There would be a lot closer parity to the number of payers versus how many are getting paid than there is now.

You want to really blow your mind? It is very possible that if abortion on demand had not been legalized, a Democrat may have won the last two elections. I don't know the exact statistics, but young adults have tended to be more Democrat than Republican, so an increase in the current youth population may well have swayed the vote. And the final anyalysis showed there was an increase in the youth vote in the last election (I did not hear a final estimate of how they broke down by party affiliation).

Jim in Iowa

Social Security isn't broken, although many would argue that it isn't needed.

Funny how when Clinton was saying it was broken during his term in office, the democrats seemed to agree with him, but now that Bush is saying it they want to claim Bush is somehow "creating" a crisis that has never existed.

Jim in Iowa

SS is a TAX. It goes out of your pocket, to the government, and they spend it. It's no more "yours" than other income tax that's going to pay for the war in Iraq. You have no demand right on it, and unless you can get your government to repeal that tax, you're not going to.

You raise an important point but seem to forget the debate about this. Didn't Gore 4 years ago talk about creating a "lockbox" for SS funds? Social Security was not originally conceived as welfare, but as a means of providing for a suplement to retirement. So it is misleading to say it is just another tax. It is also why Bush's plan makes a lot more sense -- I am putting away my own money in a place where the government can't touch it and where it will actually gain in value!

Jim in Iowa

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC: Madrox 5 was awesome! How about a new thread where we can discuss it!!

Jim in Iowa

So you're telling us that American Social Security is like a gigantic pyramid scheme? And the only way to get the guys at the top paid is to keep millions of kids coming in at the bottom?

That's retarded.

Face it, EVERYTHING in America is underfunded, not just the SS. With trillions of dollars in debt and an ever increasing defecit, you guys can't afford ANYTHING.

But you'll keep borrowing money to pay for more weapons now, wontcha?

Jim, good points, pretty much as usual...

I still think PAD's comments were a little tounge-in-cheek, so I'll concede that he invites the abortion comparrison, but stop short of saying his point can be turned into a pro-life discussion. I think they're more or less unrelated, and only by twisting can you get them connected.

Your point about abortion basically winnowing the ranks of those that might vote democrat is kinda mind-blowing, and probably more than a little accurate. Let's say that 2/3 of those 30 million reach voting age, and 60% of those vote democrat. That's net of 12 million votes swinging the other way...giving Kerry a 9 million vote victory. Assuming enough of those are spread to Red states.

still...boggles the mind.

Just for the record, when Clinton was saying there was nothing wrong with SS, I was saying he was wrong. SS has been facing this problem since the end of the baby boom.

Not sure what you mean that SS isn't just another tax. We have plenty of taxes that are earmarked for specific purposes. The FAA manages a financing system that is paid for through airport taxes only. Funds don't get commingled with the common tax fund from other sources. Just because SS tax goes into a separate fund doesn't make it any less of a tax.

From the perspective of the tax payer, it is just another tax...money they only see as a negative transaction on a pay stub.

And if you're talking about Bush's plan to allow 2-3% of the 6% SS tax to be invested by employees in private acocunts, how does that make sense? It reduces the amount of money going into the SS fund, meaning that benefits will need to be reduced, or the fund will run dry that much sooner. How does that "fix" anything?

John, SS have been doing fine for the past 60 years. It's maintained a positive fund balance, and would continue to do so, except that the baby boom resulted in a large population that is nearing retirement age today. And with a drop-off in birth rate, the fund is going to run out at current funding levels. Once the baby-boomers die off, things should return to normal.

And it's only been in the last 4 years that we've been underfunded. Clinton ran balanced budgets and managed to gain a surplus, which Bush had spent in his fist month.

Slight exaggeration, but the surplus was gone within Bush's first year. And no, it wasn't all because of 9/11.

For those of you taking PAD literally. I can't speak for him, but based on my reading of his comments I tend to believe as some one else posted, this is a bit tongue in cheek. The point (I think) being that we don't have the money for social secrity yet we spend billions (I think, I don't know the exact number) on a war that was completely unnecessary (see recent accounts on how there were never any WMD's in Iraq).

I know the money for the war and the money for social security comes from two different places, but just the juxtoposition of the two helps us see where Bush's interests truly lie. I don't know the percentage of families below the poverty line. What I do know is that there are many people out there who don't have health insurance, and work for minumum wage (or more), who can't afford to save for the future. Social security is a benifit these people might not be able to afford to live without. Giving an investment banker the oporunity to invest some of his/her social security benifits is a lot different than forcing some one who works two jobs to get by to figure out where to invest said money.

If we really are concerned with saving lives, making sure we as a people are safe, we shouldn't focus on wars that ultimately are a waste of money and human life (american and everyone else), but better ways to spend that same money to secure our future (social security being one aspect) and a peacefull resolution for the worlds.

But that's just one man's opinion.

I feel I just need to put my 1.673 cents in. None of this is even barely on topic.

I keep hoping that "Dub" will draft the old and infirm and send them off somewhere as canon-fodder. That would help out both healthcare and social security. It's always cheaper to bury than cure. This will give the old a chance to die with dignity and get buried at govenment expense. Plus it has the added benifit of clearing out the old-age homes for those baby-boomers. I think we're going to need a bigger war if we want to get rid of them.

And on the abortion/pro-life debate, I don't know anyone who celebrates their conception date. Aside from the fact that I have to admit that my parents actually had sex, the thought of celebrating the day they had sex to make me just seems creepy.

From the perspective of the tax payer, it is just another tax...money they only see as a negative transaction on a pay stub.

From that perspective, I can see your point. In fact, half of the SS is hidden because the employer pays it. If people had to pay the full 15.3% for SS and medicare like those who are self employed to, they might realize how much they are truly paying.

Why does Bush's idea make sense? You are right that it lessens the amount going in right now, but it greatly increases what those who do get to invest it get at retirement. I have no financial savy, but just putting my money in an IRA has given me over a 6% or more return. That is far more than 1.5% for SS. Bush's fix is not a short term fix but a long term change that I think is long overdue.

Jim in Iowa

"I have no financial savy, but just putting my money in an IRA has given me over a 6% or more return."

Sorry for the horrible grammar. Lack of sleep. Long story, won't bore you.

Jim in Iowa

Jim, that part makes sense. But SS doesn't pay out today, it pays out 30 or 40 years from today. Maybe the numbers would work out, but if we reduce the income going into the fund today, we're going to hit that predicted shortfall a lot sooner, and that's going to mean that the money is going to have to come from somewhere, either in diverting funds from other programs, or in reduced benefits to those that haven't had the time to divert enough investments to cover the reduction.

However, maybe I'm missing part of Bush's plan. Will money invested by the taxpayer still put that money into the general SS, fund, or will it accrue only for the taxpayer's benefit? If it goes into the fund, then the long-term effect should be to cover the shortfall to a certain degree. But my impression is that people are expecting to get that money to invest for themselves, and to keep it. While that will eventually work out, you would still have to insure that some portion of the population retains SS benefits, and determine a cut off point, basically allowing people to opt out of the program as they invest and cover their future SS income.

In other words, it seems like a much more complex program than Bush's proposed solution seems to address.

On return rates, a low rate usually comes with low risk. That 6% sure sounds better than 1.5%, but it comes with more risk that, come time to use it, it might only be 0.5%, or maybe not be there at all. What little financial savy I have is that spreading your investment risk between a mix of investment options is the safest thing to do. Anyone who puts all their retirement dollars into a single fund is just asking for that fund to go broke.

Well, maybe they're actually asking for it to have a 33% return, but the risk they're taking is that they'll lose everything.

Just the fact that this is the most expensive innauguration ever is enough to make one ill.

Kingbobb, I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton's celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year's bash by Bush.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm

Jim in Iowa

if we go by the current plan being floated by the white house, then we're looking at an estimated 42% reduction in benefits to CURRENT recipients due to the loss in revenue, as well as a minimum of 1 TRILLION extra debt to fund the new private accounts and the switchover.

Meanwhile, if we were to leave social security exactly as it is, everybody gets the same benefits until 2042, when benefits would have to be reduced by 30%.

however, if we raised or eliminated the 87,000 earnings cap and instituted a means test, social security could go on the same way its been.

then there's this fact:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n2/index.html

Calculations of the median voter's return from "investing" in Social Security suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets.
-------

and from Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media.

But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt.

These numbers are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan.

Under Plan 2, payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts while future benefits would be cut. In the short run, this would worsen the budget deficit. In the long run, if all went well, cutting benefit payments would reduce the deficit.

All wouldn't go well; I'll explain why in another column. But suppose that everything went according to plan. Even in that unlikely case, privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis?

While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis - not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk.
---------

bottom line is, social security is fixable with a few minor tweaks, not a plan that could cost at least a trillion (and aren't we supposed to be reducing the deficit?)

If you want to invest, go wild. Get yourself a Roth IRA or a 401k. nobody's gonna stop you. but don't take that money from social security.
why? cause it's not yours. It's not an IRA, it's a contract with society. You agree to pay for the elderly, the infirm, and the widowed. Future people will pay for you when you need it. You're not paying in now to get the same money back later. that would be a pension plan.

social security needs work, its true. but what it doesnt need is to be hobbled by private accounts.

I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton's celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year's bash by Bush.

That's just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec...

Yeah, I was afraid of that. Such a waste on both sides. Thus proving that, regardless of their political positions, the parties are probably more alike than different.

Although did DC Feds get time off for Clinton's bash? I have no idea. It all seems so extravagant, and at a time when millions of people suffering after the tsunamis are stuggling to put their lives back together. And after the way the adminstration pouted after getting called stingy for offering $15 million in aid, to then turn around and spend $200 million on a party seems, well, tacky.

But I guess that's US.

Just wondering, how does everyone feel about the White House being given money to run the many, many dances Bush will be attending over the net few weeks from big corporations?

In other words, it seems like a much more complex program than Bush's proposed solution seems to address.

Well, the government is involved, so of course it will be complicated! I do think it is an improvement, but only if we do keep it as simple as possible. Given both parties track record, I won't hold my breath.

On return rates, a low rate usually comes with low risk. That 6% sure sounds better than 1.5%, but it comes with more risk that, come time to use it, it might only be 0.5%, or maybe not be there at all.

Actually, the 6% came during a down time in the stock market, and I did not put it all in one fund. The version I heard would have a "safety net" where it would be only certain approved programs that you could invest your money, and you were then "guaranteed" at least the 1.5% (or thereabouts) that everyone else would get.

I think you are right, though, that the money would be privately invested and not put in a government fund. So that would pose a cash flow problem for the government. While we may disagree on where we should cut spending, I think most agree we have to do so somewhere!

In addition, I personally think raising the amount subject to the SS tax makes sense rather than raising the percent taken out. I don't agree in general with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate, but in this case, it is just taxing the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else. If that was raised from the current level (something like $90k?) to $150K or $200K, that would help cover the shortfall.

Bottom line, I like the principle of what Bush wants to do, but it is still a concept. It must be fleshed out. I think it is premature to rule it out until all of the facts are put on the table.

Jim in Iowa

Paul:

>Just wondering, how does everyone feel about the White House being given money to run the many, many dances Bush will be attending over the net few weeks from big corporations?

Given the dance steps I've seen, I'd call that bad money management....

As far as the social security proposal, from what I can gather it appears that the only people who could potentially profit from this are those who are educated in investment and/or those with an excess of income already. It doesn't take into account those who actually will need this money and would seem to actually hurt that population.

From the few commentaries that I've heard, it sounds like the Prez's hopes will not reach fruition as most "experts" are stating that only some parts of this plan have any hopes of being passed.

Fred

I agree that the funding issue needs to be addressed, and I think raising the tax cap on SS is the way to go. It's currently set at $90K, up from $87K, but that's it. If the numbers held up, I'd probably go a step further and only tax a certain amount, say income made over the poverty line (is that like $25K for a family these days?). So, impose the 6% tax on income from say $30Kto $200K. It would spread the burden out a little more on those best able to bear it, and address the funding issues all at once.

Then, carve out 2% of that 6% and allow people to choose how to invest it. At retirement, they either get their guaranteed 1.5%, or whatever amount their 2% has resulted in. That way, if they invested poorly, they still get 1.5%, and if they invested well, they could get say 3-5%. Plus, since that money comes from their private fund, it would reduce the strain on the general SS fund, which after 20 or 30 years, could result in a reduction in SS tax overall.

And after the way the adminstration pouted after getting called stingy for offering $15 million in aid, to then turn around and spend $200 million on a party seems, well, tacky.

I have no problem with the festivities in general, but your point does bring some perspective to the actual amount involved. As a friend would say, "this isn't Monopoly money." For some, anything spent would be too much, so I don't know the balance, but I personally think it was excessive.

Jim in Iowa

I agree that the funding issue needs to be addressed, and I think raising the tax cap on SS is the way to go.

Wait! Someone on this site agreed with me on something! I must go listen to 15 hours of Rush and find out where I went wrong . . .

(just kidding!)

I could support the plan you proposed. It would be better than what we have today, and more fair on both sides of the equation.

Jim in Iowa

Anyone see any Riders of Doom coming?

Plagues? Not counting the squid that washed ashore in CA today, of course (by the way, how's that for a bummer of an omen on you swearing in day?)

I mean, what else can it mean when a conservative and a liberal agree on something, other than that the End Times are upon us?

In terms of tongue-in-cheek, I was absolutely as serious as Jonathan Swift was with his essay, "A Modest Proposal."

As for claiming my post was an anti-abortion argument, that just take some kinda stretch. First, all I'm saying is that Bush is a hypocrite, claiming reverence for unborn life while having no regard for it once it's born.

Second, the notion that if abortion was illegal, then that would result in millions of new babies, is based upon nothing except wishful thinking. There is no way of comparing the number of legal abortions over the past years to the number of illegal abortions that we simply don't know about in the years previous to that. And that's not even counting the young women who died from internal hemorrhaging through back alley abortions.

Obviously, though, Bushies are uncomfortable enough with the simple truth that Bush's List has pointlessly cost us 1300 Americans and tens of thousands more who will never be...with more to come, plus Iran in the hopper...and so quickly try to steer the conversation into something they're far more comfortable with: Railing against a woman's right to choose. It's a nice dodge. A deft slight-of-hand. And as transparent as...well...as a Bush rationalization.

PAD

I just read an article that said that when adjusted for inflation, Clinton's celebration in 1997 cost 25% more than this year's bash by Bush.

That's just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec...

Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

First, all I'm saying is that Bush is a hypocrite, claiming reverence for unborn life while having no regard for it once it's born.

And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better? You can disagree with whether his approach is better, but Bush is not being hypocritical to his core beliefs. You just don't happent to agree with those beliefs. There is a difference.

Jim in Iowa

Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the "mainstream" media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton's second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

Jim in Iowa

And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?

And as there is no way of ever knowing that his actions had the effect you ascribe to them, it makes this rather an empty argument, wouldn't you agree?

But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton's second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

And all things being equal, perhaps that little bit of trivia might prove a point of some kind. Except, of course, things aren't equal, or anywhere close.

Now, we are in the middle of a war (whether you consider it needless or not really doesn't matter), then we were not. Now, we're mired in an ever-incresing deficit, then we were enjoying a surplus.

And don't even get me started on the fact that Bush is the first President in the ENTIRE history of the country to not reimburse the city of D.C. for the costs incurred by his little victory lap....

Republicans are not pro-life.

They are pro birth. It's "all" about the birth.

Once your born, they could care less.

PAD wrote: "Obviously, though, Bushies are uncomfortable enough with the simple truth that Bush's List has pointlessly cost us 1300 Americans and tens of thousands more who will never be..."

Spoken like a true Tory in 1776! Yeah, in my mind's eye, I can see you arguing your case as you sit at a Tory pub in the company of other Tories: "This whole war is pointless! People are dying needlessly, property is being destroyed, it's bad for business, and it will serve no purpose in the end. The uneducated rabble which makes up the majority of the Colonists are fighting for a hopeless cause against hopeless odds. And for what? Freedom and Democracy? It could never work here -- it would be total chaos -- most of the people here are ignorant and uneducated. How could such a mob govern itself? Washington and those other crazy idealists in the Continental Congress are dragging us all down the road to ruin."

Yep! I can see it all now....

"Now, we're mired in an ever-increasing deficit, then we were enjoying a surplus."

Actually I believe that Clinton announced the surplus in 1998, 2 years after the election.

But this is all just partisan politics and even by THOSE low standards it's petty.. When it's the guy you like, an inauguration is a glorious celebration of democracy. When it's the guy you didn't vote for it's a gaudy display of avarice and special interest money.

Eventually the Democrats will nominate someone who doesn't run a train wreck of a campaign again and you'll have your chance to enjoy Jan 20th again.

So over a period of ten years back in the 1960s, we lost 50,000 Americans. I'm not mathematician enough to calculate the number of Americans who were never born as a result: Americans added to the workforce, whose salaries would have contributed to social security, or who would have founded companies to hire people whose salaries, etc. But I would not hesitate to guess that would be a lot of warm bodies, all paying in to the program.

Well, hell, if numbers are what you're after, let's reduce the number of traffic deaths per year. In 2003 we lost as many as 42,000 people. And that was just one year.

Or we could always just let in more immigrants to replace the people we lost. Hey, they're sneaking in anyway.

When it's the guy you like, an inauguration is a glorious celebration of democracy. When it's the guy you didn't vote for it's a gaudy display of avarice and special interest money.

Actually, I don't think there's anything 'glorious' about wasting that kind of money on what is essentially just a victory lap, no matter whose victory it is.

Current circumstances in the world just happen to make this one especailly appaling, IMO, 'tis all... *g*

Doesn't this analogy pretty much fall apart before it gets started due to the fact that it is considerably easier to immigrate to America than it is to become Jewish? [depending on whether one is speaking of religious or ethnic Jewishness, the latter is either very difficult or entirely impossible.]

Or do the people who come into America to join the workforce, pay social security taxes, and found companies not count somehow?

That's just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec...

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic again. The media is generally called a bunch of unreliable idiots, except when they happen to support one's views. Then they're a reliable, upstanding foundation of society, and the information gleaned therein is deemed indisputable. It's also not limited to one side or the other.

Jim in Iowa's usually fairminded (for either side) with regard to documentation and references, and my jab wasn't entirely fair. I just couldn't resist. Sorry, Jim.

Actually Jim, the WTimes is indeed massaging their facts. A few key bits:

"A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year."

It's a quick little jump there from "US Taxpayers" to "the District." The DC city government is not the only people who open their pockets for the event, there's also the Park service (who are responsible for all the Smithsonian grounds) and other government operations to a lesser extent. Also, the US taxpayers will only be reimbursing the District for about 12.4M of that amount, leaving them to foot the bill for the rest out of their Homeland Security funding, as they were originally ordered to do with the full amount.

Mind you, we all paid for that HS money in the first place so despite the robbing Peter to pay Paul it's still all our money. (Or would be if it was real money and not imaginary deficit money)

The Times also seems mum on the particular odious practice going on this year where the District puts up the parade viewing stands at their expense and the RNC then sells the seats for $60 and puts the proceeds in their coffers. Quite charming.

Finally, the number comparison seems to be apples and oranges. The Clinton number is the combination of the private expenditure from 97 of around 33M plus the government security number of around 10M where the Bush number is just the private/RNC money. Some estimates have put the total combined expenditure for this year at almost 70M combined private and public monies.

Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the "mainstream" media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton's second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

Sorry, Jim, but that dog won't hunt.

Salient points courtesy of Salon:

* The Washington Times original reported less than a fortnight ago that the Bush team wanted to raise $50 million for the inaugaration. However, soon after the complaints of the cost of Bush v2.0 inauguration costs started, all such reportage stopped and the Times chopped $10 million off their original estimate of Bush's expenditures. It is very possible that the actual cost of this shindig will be well above $40 million.
* The claim that Clinton's second inauguration's adjusted cost would be $49 million today is bogus. According to the vast majority of news sources, Clinton's soire cost around $30 million, which would still be less than $35 million in today's dollars.
* The only way to boost the Clinton cost would be to consider the $12 million spent by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, and the government of the District of Columbia. Using that same accounting technique and adding the $20 million governmental agencies are footing, Bush's inauguration will cost at least $60 million (and probably more).

"Were they wrong in their facts"? Yes.

"Did they distort anything"? Most egregiously so.

Yes, the both sides are selling an idea, but the Washington Times is selling ersatz product. The facts remain: 1). this is unquestionably the most expensive inauguration in our republic's history, 2). the amount of corporate cash donated (in return for access and favors) is obscene, 3). the tradition of muted inaugurations during a war is being shucked in favor of affair apparently so ostentatious, Austin Powers would blush, and 4). Washington D.C. is being stiffed by the government for security costs, meaning that our nation's capitol's homeland defense budget will be shot (they will not be able to afford the HazMat equipment that they were planning on).

Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the "mainstream" media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton's second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

Sorry, Jim, but that dog won't hunt.

Salient points courtesy of Salon:

* The Washington Times original reported less than a fortnight ago that the Bush team wanted to raise $50 million for the inaugaration. However, soon after the complaints of the cost of Bush v2.0 inauguration costs started, all such reportage stopped and the Times chopped $10 million off their original estimate of Bush's expenditures. It is very possible that the actual cost of this shindig will be well above $40 million.
* The claim that Clinton's second inauguration's adjusted cost would be $49 million today is bogus. According to the vast majority of news sources, Clinton's soiree cost around $30 million, which would still be less than $35 million in today's dollars.
* The only way to boost the Clinton cost would be to consider the $12 million spent by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, and the government of the District of Columbia. Using that same accounting technique and adding the $20 million governmental agencies are footing, Bush's inauguration will cost at least $60 million (and probably more).

"Were they wrong in their facts"? Yes.

"Did they distort anything"? Most egregiously so.

Yes, the both sides are selling an idea, but the Washington Times is selling ersatz product. The facts remain: 1). this is unquestionably the most expensive inauguration in our republic's history, 2). the amount of corporate cash donated (in return for access and favors) is obscene, 3). the tradition of muted inaugurations during a war is being shucked in favor of affair apparently so ostentatious, Austin Powers would blush, and 4). Washington D.C. is being stiffed by the government for security costs, meaning that our nation's capitol's homeland defense budget will be shot (they will not be able to afford the HazMat equipment that they were planning on).

Oops! Sorry about the double post!

"And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?"

You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

Don't worry; the questions were rhetorical. We know the answer already.

PAD

You mean Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" wasn't meant to be literal? Man, I wish someone had told me before my barbecue last weekend. And now my cookbook has *no* shot of getting published!

(Kudos/apologies to SEALAB 2021 for inspiring the above.)

I must go listen to 15 hours of Rush and find out where I went wrong . . .

Start with Caress of Steel. "Bastille Day" has a lot to say about all this. Then try A Farewell To Kings - and really listen to the title track...

After two days and 11 hours of often contentious hearings, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Rice's nomination 16-2 Wednesday, despite reservations of some Democrats who nonetheless voted for her. The two dissenting votes came from Boxer and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. "I choose to vote my concerns, not to overlook them. I choose to vote my gut, not custom," Kerry said during a committee meeting that preceded the vote.

BwaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry voted his gut. LMAO!!!!

Once again, he's on the wrong side of history.

You're all just whining because your candidate wasn't the front man today. Do you want some cheese with that wine?

Please don't move out of the country. You'll add one more statistic to Peter's flawless list of Social Security losses.

The reality is Bush is not conducting a revenge operation for 9/11 or a personal attack on Iraq, he is waging a war on terror in countries around the world.

I'll ask it again: Why are we in Iraq again?

And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?

Last I checked, bin Laden was still on the loose. More to the point, bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein, was the man behind the 9/11 attacks.

Please, dispose of the utter ignorance and replace it with the truth. It would do you and 58 million other Americans alot of good.

So, will you be satisfied if, knowing we have Hussein in hand, we have a 1/21 tomorrow?
Would that make it all better, knowing that Bush hadn't hit the broadside of a barn in the war on terror?

You elected the dumbass. You answer the question for once.

Or we could always just let in more immigrants to replace the people we lost. Hey, they're sneaking in anyway.

Which is typical brainless Bush thinking right there.

No wonder this country is up Shit Creek.

You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

What I get is that when Bush declared war on terrorists, he included not just those who attacked on 9/11, but also others who had the same goal and the same capabilities. The war on terror was not just a war on Al Quada (sp?), but on terrorist threats that were considered large enough to threaten the USA. That is why I specifically stated the war in Iraq -- and the war on terror in general -- is, in fact, a pre-emptive war on all terrorist threats. I can very much understand why you would oppose such a pre-emptive war. I am wary of it myself. But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation.

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa wrote:
"I am obviously the minority on this site. But I am convinced that we are safer today with G W Bush as president."

I agree. In fact, I thought Thursday was a glorious day for America and I'm looking forward to four more years under President George W. Bush. The only negative is four more years of constant petty whining and over-reaction from the looney Left. Bush won. Deal with it.

So, will you be satisfied if, knowing we have Hussein in hand, we have a 1/21 tomorrow?
Would that make it all better, knowing that Bush hadn't hit the broadside of a barn in the war on terror?

Of course I would not be happy if there was another attack (whether it was Bush or Kerry being sworn in today). I suggest you read the book "Shadow War" that documents what has actually happened in the last 3 years in the war on terror. There IS a reason we have not had another 9/11 in the last 3 years, and it is not just blind luck. Obviously, at some point in history, a terrorist plan will most likely succeed again. But the fact that we are not like Israel or Iraq, in fear of the next car bomb or suicide bomber staging an attack at the local mall, church, or grocery store is because Bush has done some things right.

Why are we in Iraq? The answer is simple: Bush believed that Saddam was capable of staging the next 9/11. Was Bush wrong? Was invading Iraq the best answer to this perceived threat? I believe yes in this case, you disagree. I believe we not only could but had to fight the war on terror on more than one front. We could not just wait till we caught Bin Laden before dealing with other threats. It makes for a cute sound bite to say Bush "took his eye off the ball," but the reality is that this was not football but more like juggling -- there are multiple balls that need to be watched, and letting any one of them fall to the ground can be disasterous. We may not have caught Bin Laden, but there it is very clear that we have radically reduced him as an active threat, while at the same time we have neutralized the threat of Saddam Hussein. This is something that no previous recent president, including Clinton, has done. And we have 3 years of no attacks on American soil.

Obviously, the big question is Iraq. And I fully agree that if this gets botched up, it will unravel any good Bush has done in the last 3 years. But I also believe, based on the reports of troops there in Iraq first hand, that the war is going far better than is being portrayed in the media. It is way too premature to write off Iraq as a failure (or a success). We have to wait and see, and do everything possible to make it a success.

Jim in Iowa

Obviously, the big question is Iraq. And I fully agree that if this gets botched up, it will unravel any good Bush has done in the last 3 years. But I also believe, based on the reports of troops there in Iraq first hand, that the war is going far better than is being portrayed in the media.

Yes? So? That misses the point.

Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world that we are trying to reach isn't listening to our troops. They have no reason to. They trust other sources far more.

And this is where the Bush Administration has botched this war. They have fought it only on the military level and have sadly neglected the police, economic, social and PR levels of their actions. And it is on those levels that US actions have been found wanting--far too few troops the vital functions of Iraqui society and far too little success in getting Irqui help.

When power and water have been only intermittently available in Baghdad for over a year after the invasion, it's easy to make the US look like they're not doing their job. "Progress" is irrelevant, as it's progress from US inflicted actions. The failure to take those kind of sentiments into account NO MATTER WHAT THE "ACTUAL" SITUATION is incompetence, plain and simple.

Hmmm.....
It's not only the 6500 that would never exist, but their offspring as well and theirs and theirs ad infinitum. Yes, like a bizarre Ponzi scheme, the thing becomes somewhat exponential.
And I'm still gonna talk about Eisner et al later on.

"I suggest you read the book "Shadow War" that documents what has actually happened in the last 3 years in the war on terror."

Shadow war, how is an episode guide to Babylon 5's 3rd season gonna help us?

"But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation."

And I'm sure Hitler thought he was acting in Germany's best interests too...

""But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation."

Bladstar says:
And I'm sure Hitler thought he was acting in Germany's best interests too...

Godwin's Law strikes again!

But if one needs to be convinced that the Brownshirts still walk among us, set those typing fingers to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050120/480/watw10201202221

Of course, these folks would probably say they support the military, it's the war they can't abide...well, that and people who don't think the way they're supposed to...

PAD wrote:
On this national day of mourning, a.k.a. Inauguration Day
I don't think you can call it a national day of mourning, since the majority of the nation picked him. "Sore Looser Day", "How Did We Loose Touch With the People Day", "Voter Conspiracy Day", "Take My Ball and Go Home Day" and "Hilary in '08 Day" would be fine.

You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

Hmm... so let me get this right, PAD would have attacked Saudi Arabia because it was Saudis that brought down the twin towers? Even though the particular Saudis responsible were in Afghanistan? Okay, now I'm confused.

Eric!, a majority of the nation didn't vote for Bush, he just got the most votes. In fact, more people didn't vote for either candidate (78 million) than those who voted for them.

And, yeah, I've heard all the "if you don't vote you don't count" blah dee blah de blah. Point is, Bush and his adminstration keep saying how the American people voted for him, which is a blatant lie. The best they could say is that they won the election, and nearly half of the eligible voters in American stated that they either didn't care, or were too disgusted with the whole political/governmental scene that they just didn't vote. I've read in Canada that an abstained vote is recorded as a vote of protest. maybe we should do something similar, to make it harder for Bush to push over one more lie on the public.

Jim, I have to disagree with you on Bush falling into the hypocrit role. He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don't you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world. This is where Bush is a hypocrit.

Well, eclark, that reasoning makes just about as much sense as attacking Iraq becase Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan....

Deal with it.

Yeah, 1300 dead American soldiers have had to "deal with it". Uncounted dead Iraqis have had to "deal with it".

I wonder who will be next to "deal" with this mass murderer.

And I fully agree that if this gets botched up

It already IS botched up. What more do you want?

Another 4 years again after this set to give Bush a third try to fix his little Vietnam?

Bush and his adminstration keep saying how the American people voted for him...The best they could say is that they won the election

Which is why he gets to be President and push more of his agenda.

This election had the highest turnout in years: the last I heard was 60%. He won the electoral college, and his party gained seats in both houses. By every measure, this election was a huge boost for the Republicans.

You can try and throw out the 40% didn't vote all day, but in general I'm not going to lose sleep over the concerns of someone who didn't even bother to show up.

Kingbob wrote:
The best they could say is that they won the election, and nearly half of the eligible voters in American stated that they either didn't care, or were too disgusted with the whole political/governmental scene that they just didn't vote.
You gotta be dizzy from putting the spin on that.

Eric!, Spin? What spin? It's fact...about 117 million voted. Bush got 60 million. That leaves over 60 million that didn't vote. You stated that a majority of nation picked him. That's just plain wrong. A majority would have to be 80-90 million, which Bush didn't get. 40% abstaining is nearly half.

So, where's the spin? If anything, your statement is the one in danger of suffering the effects of dizzyness.

"I don't think you can call it a national day of mourning"

Oh, I think I can. Christmas is a national holiday and not everyone celebrates it. I feel safe in saying there's people in every single state in the Union who are in mourning for the 1300 on Bush's growing list, for the gullability of their fellow citizens, for the spiralling lack of esteem in which the US is held abroad, and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going.

PAD

>>"I don't think you can call it a national day of mourning"

>Oh, I think I can. Christmas is a national holiday and not everyone celebrates it. I feel safe in saying there's people in every single state in the Union who are in mourning for the 1300 on Bush's growing list, for the gullability of their fellow citizens, for the spiralling lack of esteem in which the US is held abroad, and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going.

>PAD

Not to mention *oops, guess it is mentioned now :p* the repeatedly mispoken statements that is being bought into by Americans that our country is safer. Given the 8 year time span between the 1st attack against the U.S. on our soil and the 2nd, there really isn't any evidence to suggest that we are any safer at all.

Fred

PAD wrote: "...and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going."

I don't know, PAD. I just don't have the same negativity vibe as you about the way things are right now. Sure, I have concerns (a terrorist WMD attack or the future U.S. job situation, for example), but compared to the way things were going ACROSS THE BOARD in this country in, say, 1968, things today are definitely better.

If the late 1960s was "the good old days," then you can have 'em!

Well, eclark, that reasoning makes just about as much sense as attacking Iraq becase Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan....

...Or would if it were a reason given for attacking Iraq.

"He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don't you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world"

Christian doctrines and dogma does not require a court to declare titles and lavels of "guilt" in regards to "justice".

Besides that, tyrants are never put on trial BEFORE their countries are invaded and their regimes deposed. Your scenario is an odd cart-before-the-horse deal.

Heck, how many people recieve justice without ever being declared guilty? No one ever declared John Wilkes Booth guilty, yet I shed no tears upon his murder. Stalin died of a brain hemmorage the night before he was going to engage genocidal anti-Semitic policies. I'll chalk that up to justice and no one ever declared him guilty in a court of law.

Your definition of justice is wayyyyyyyyyyy too narrow to work in a world that doesn't always respond or respect every nation's respective laws.

"Pre-emptive military actions" are not automatically inconsistent with a Christian view of the world. How many people have killed in self-defense at the sign of potential harm rather than in response to actual harm? How many wars have been launched to stem threats rather than merely react to them? (We joined World War II against Japan because they attacked us; we engaged in the European Theatre because the NAZIs were growing in power and because, heck, they were pouding our Allies. The NAZIs and Japanese were also Axis Powers. Most people who kill in self-defense really are killing before they're harmed, rather than people who got winged and then struck back...)

Unless you believe that a Christian view on justice is all about reaction. That's an honest interpretation and I can respect that... I think it's downright wrong and it translates into the sort of pacifism that I ultimately equate with institutional helplessness. That's Great Britain's problem.

Bush's own words on using force in Iraq:

"And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

As we've since learned, there was no credible evidence that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq, that Iraq had weapons to provide to them, or that Iraq would have provided them weapons if they did have them.

Bush, in his own words, gave this as a reason for attacking. He was either wrong, or he lied. As only an idiot would willing launch a conventional attack, with troops on the ground, against an enemey with the capacity to use WMDs, I have to conclude that Bush is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

Not all Democrats have lost their sense of (gallows) humor. Check out http://www.thestranger.com/current/bigcover.html

http://www.boreme.com/bm/JAN05/a/vw-suicide-bomber/fr.htm

And if THIS one were real it would be the Greatest Car Ad Ever.

Hmmmmm, I am curious to how many Jews (among other peoples) GWB has saved by opposing Islamic terrorism? I know the the nation of Israel is probably damned happy Saddam isn't raining down SCUDs on their heads or has to wait for them to be tipped with nuclear warheads. Hmmmmm, I never understood this thing with Dimocratic Jewish folks. They'd rather support dictators (or at least stand by idle and let evil things happen) and terrorists that especially target Jews. Must be a Barbara Streisand thing, I'm safe in America behind my estate walls. But what will you do if America falls? Where will you go then? Saudi Arabia? I heard they have loads of freedom there...

Bush, in his own words, gave this as a reason for attacking. He was either wrong, or he lied.

Read it again, Bush's reason for attacking Iraq was that it supported terrorism, including Al Qaeda, which we know Saddam did. He also paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Even the 9-11 Commission found co-operation between Saddam and al Qaeda. So yes, a link to Al Queda was made and yes, It was given as a reason to attack Iraq, but it not BECAUSE Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Oh, and it was a Manhattan federal court during the Clinton administration that found there were links to Al Qaeda and Saddam, long before Bush even ran for office. So there goes that lie.

More news from our wonderful compassionate president.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_benefit_cuts

Let's make sure the wealthy get tax cuts and financial windfalls from social security privatization, but take from those of us who can least afford it. But keep sticking up for him. His PR machine (using government funds, by the way) thanks you for believing the doublespeak he keeps shovelling.

They'd rather support dictators

They're not supporting Bush, are they?

Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.

"If the late 1960s was "the good old days," then you can have 'em!"

Lessee...low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles.

Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war.

Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol' days indeed.

PAD

I thought we were in Afghanistan? No?

See when did unborn babys become human lives? I thought they were just fetuses (or is it fetei?)

PAD wrote: "Lessee...low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles. Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war. Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol' days indeed."

I think your rose-colored glasses need a cleaning. In just one year alone, 1968, there was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (which, by the way, killed nearly 550 U.S. soldiers in ONE WEEK, and wounded more than 2,500 more); the My Lai massacre; the Martin Luther King Jr assassination; the Robert Kennedy assassination; the bloody, savage riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago; a series of nation-wide bombings and murders by the Weather Underground and other assorted anarchist groups; the horrible race riots (and resulting fires and looting) in almost every major city in the country that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses; the election in November 1968 of Richard Nixon; and plenty of other unrest and mayhem that bubbled around the U.S. that "idyllic" year.

Nah. You can have the late 1960s -- especially 1968.

When you look at an old copy of Time Or Newsweek from the 60s--and I recommend it to everyone, just for the exercise in perspective--it seems like a miracle that the country survived.

Let's add to the list the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, thalidomide, toxic waste dumping that we are still finding out about, wretched TV shows and probably no better music than what we have now. (Sure, I love a good classic 60s station as much as anyone but let's face it--they've culled out the crap. The number 2 most popular single of 1968 was...Honey by Bobby Goldsboro.)

Honey.

You remember that one, right?
"She wrecked the car
and she was sad
And so afraid that I'd be mad
But what the heck"

or

"She was always young at heart
Kinda dumb and kinda smart and I loved her so"

Say what you want about 2005, I can at least turn on the radio and be reasonably assured that I won't be exposed to the golden voice of Mr. Goldsboro. The sixties. Feh. You can have 'em.

The 60s brought us Star Trek. That alone is reason to celebrate it.

The 60s brought... well... ME! And my brothers!
I LOVE the 60s!!!!

"The 60s brought us Star Trek.'

Yeah, but they also gave us My Mother The Car.

Although I still remember the lyrics to the theme song so...

Peter said Man landing on the moon.

Are you sure you don't consider that a government conspiracy? I'm shocked you actually believe we landed on the moon.

Craig said Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.

That's President Bush, get it right. If you're going to attempt to slam him, at least show a modicum of respect.

kingbobb said Eric!, Spin? What spin? It's fact...about 117 million voted. Bush got 60 million. That leaves over 60 million that didn't vote. You stated that a majority of nation picked him. That's just plain wrong. A majority would have to be 80-90 million, which Bush didn't get. 40% abstaining is nearly half.

Now I see where the liberals get their logic from. You might as well say that the 40% who didn't vote would have vote for Kerry if they got off their arses and actually cared about the election. So, in your eyes, Kerry's probably President right now.

Bah!

Karen said Let's make sure the wealthy get tax cuts and financial windfalls from social security privatization, but take from those of us who can least afford it. But keep sticking up for him. His PR machine (using government funds, by the way) thanks you for believing the doublespeak he keeps shovelling.

I don't see you giving your tax cut back. Paltry as it may be, you still keep it don't you? It never ceases to amaze me that people always seem to complain about things other people are getting and they can't have. You either want the same as someone else or more. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

Anthony said Republicans are not pro-life. They are pro birth. It's "all" about the birth.Once your born, they could care less.

That's the biggest crock of %&^*. LMAO.

Make sure you catch the Bruce Springsteen/Hillary Clinton get out the Libs Bus Tour in '08 instead of letting it pass you by.

Novafan: I don't see you giving your tax cut back. Paltry as it may be, you still keep it don't you? It never ceases to amaze me that people always seem to complain about things other people are getting and they can't have. You either want the same as someone else or more. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

How do you know what I'm doing with my "tax cut"? And yes it is paltry, but by giving it to charity I am using the money for a much better purpose than returning it so it can be used for more corporate welfare.

That's President Bush, get it right. If you're going to attempt to slam him, at least show a modicum of respect.

Nah, I think I have more respect for President Castro down in Cuba.

But then, I don't recall the last time Bush referred to Hussein as president either, which he was, regardless.

Bush has earned about as much respect as Dick (Nixon).

Shadow war, how is an episode guide to Babylon 5's 3rd season gonna help us?

As a HUGE Babylon 5 fan, I actually would say there are some parallels of how a great leader who sees things others don't want to see and acts when others are afraid to act, but I am sure JMS would be horrified at the comparison between Bush and Sheridan!

Here is the full title:

Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, by Richard Miniter

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260522/qid=1106421304/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-0980088-3231339?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)

"Hmm... so let me get this right, PAD would have attacked Saudi Arabia because it was Saudis that brought down the twin towers? Even though the particular Saudis responsible were in Afghanistan? Okay, now I'm confused."

No, you're just acting like a twit, mostly for the purpose of avoiding the core points of my original post which remain unassailable.

I didn't say I'd have attacked Saudi Arabia (although the Bush connections to the Saudis pretty much preclude it.) I said that even though it was Saudis on the plane, the lies of Bush and Co. convinced Americans that it was Iraqis, just gaining falsely based support for the war that has 1300+ names on Bush's list with more to come.

I have never said a single word against the attack on Afghanistan, although you are naturally welcome to pretend I did for the purpose of further distorting the point.

PAD

Jim, I have to disagree with you on Bush falling into the hypocrit role. He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don't you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world. This is where Bush is a hypocrit.

Your point is valid only if you ignore the last 20 years of history. It is a fact that Saddam did use WMD's in the past. It is a fact that Saddam invaded a neighboring country. It is a fact that Saddam violated a lot of the ceasefire agreement that he signed to stop the first Gulf War. It is a fact that he shot at our planes almost daily -- planes that were specifically flying to keep him from repeating his previous massacre of the Kurds. It is a fact that Saddam had very active ties with terrorists, including allowing (and possibly giving direct aid to) a key figure in the first attempt on the World Trade Towers. It is a fact that the world as a whole, not just the Bush CIA, believed there was at least a threat that Saddam still had or was developing more WMD's.

Yes, Bush's actions were pre-emptive, but they did not happen in a vacuum. He attacked a country that had actively supported terrorism in the past and a country that would have been an easy refuge for the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. (Yes, many are still fleeing there now, but we are also able right now to fight them there and not wait until they attempt to strike here.)

So no, Bush is in no way a hypocrite. He says what he means and he does what he says more than most presidents. Which is why PAD and others are so opposed to him. They know that it is not just words for Bush.

On a side note, no one is 100% consistent in their beliefs. But that is not the same as true hypocrisy. The fact that I support the death penalty and am also pro-life may seem inconsistent to some, but I am not being hypocritical in holding both positions.

Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)

And I fully agree that if this gets botched up

It already IS botched up. What more do you want? Another 4 years again after this set to give Bush a third try to fix his little Vietnam?

Go back and read the press reports 2 years after we World War 2 and you will find the same doom and gloom about the prospect of Germany and Japan being stabilized. With hindsight, I do think there are some things that could have been done differently, but that is ALWAYS the case. The fact is, there IS evidence that things are NOT botched up, but that things are still in transition. I would not claim success is in any way certain, but it is a real possibility. I would claim that if the press continues to only report the negative without putting it into an honest perspective of the bigger picture, that the spin of the mass media could very much undermine what we are doing. For all of the complaints about Bush, he clearly has not taken over the media based on the bias we are getting in the media. (I have posted documentation for this earlier.)

Iowa Jim

Given the 8 year time span between the 1st attack against the U.S. on our soil and the 2nd, there really isn't any evidence to suggest that we are any safer at all.

Once again, go read "Shadow War." There has been a clear change in the capability of Al Quada in particular to attack us. Your comment ignores the attack on the USS Cole and other actions that happened during those 8 years. In addition, while Al Quada is patient, they do have something to prove right now by carrying off a successful attack here in the US. The fact that they have not done so since 9/11 does say something. Your analogy ignores the fact that we have engaged in a very active war on terror in the last 3 years, a war that has been carried out in over 80 countries around the world.

Iowa Jim

Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.

The fact that you can not only post such a comment, but make a documentary based on that idea for everyone who wants to go see (as Moore did with F911) proves your assertion is invalid.

Iowa Jim

Iowa Jim! Your new nom de internet now has the picture of you as a gunslinger firmly entrenched in my mind. Hee!

ANd while I find myself disagreeing with practically everything you say with regards to politics and religion (and the conjunction of the two) I do have to say that I respect you for the way that you say them and for the attitude you seem to have where you don't appear to beleive that people who disagree with you are either stupid or evil.

A sadly disappearing view in todays divided America, and one certainly lacking in the drive-by trolls who seem to delight in poping up here soley because they know their views are in the minority on this forum (hence insuring they will get attention, all they really want anyway...).

YOu, on the other hand, I feel are truly trying to talk to people beyond just those who agree with you, something that is going to be vital if this country is to not split in two.

Alright, now that I've given you a swelled head, I'm gonna go pop more cold medicine before returning to tell you why I think you're wrong in almost everything you said, with a hopefully clearer head.... *g*

Jim in Iowa:

>Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.

Not necessarily. It could simply mean that he is a very ineffective dictator. :p

On a serious not though, doesn't the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.

Even if one successfully argues that toppling Hussein was the right thing to do, for the right reasons, at the right time...... it is a bit presumptuous to tell that nation and its people that they must follow our model. Given their inability to seperate church and state, it appears to be an unlikely task, if not downright contradictory.

Fred

Fred Chamberlain wrote...
it is a bit presumptuous to tell that nation and its people that they must follow our model.

Especially given the track record of your model over the last few years. Not terrible, but far from perfect.

Other comments could be made about America's (in)ability to separate church and state...

It is a fact

that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq.

So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.

But don't expect Bush to notice.

What's your point? Doom & gloom were predicted here too, and guess what, they were right.

You'd have to be a damn moron to be able to compare Germany & Japan post-WW2 to Iraq today. Why? Because our soldiers weren't killed on a daily basis post-WW2.

Mission accomplished my ass.

The fact that you can not only post such a comment, but make a documentary based on that idea for everyone who wants to go see (as Moore did with F911) proves your assertion is invalid.

Umm, you didn't prove a damn thing.

Given their inability to seperate church and state, it appears to be an unlikely task, if not downright contradictory.

Oh, but of course. Now we'll just tell them they need to be a Christian democracy (or is it theocracy?) instead of a Muslim dictatorship.

As you can see, that hasn't gone over well.

Imo, it's pretty damn simple: you can't force Democracy upon these people. They MUST want it for themselves.

If they don't want it, then we have no business telling them otherwise, because democracy isn't for everybody, no matter how pathetically the Bush Administration tells us otherwise.

Craig.

It is a fact that fighting continued well into 1946 in Germany.

It is a fact that Saddam KICKED out the UN inspectors from 97-2002. WHY???

It is a fact that Saddam contributed to Palestinian terror.

It is a fact that Syrian and Iranian and Al Quada fighters are currently involved in the TERROR! Why?

So let me ask you. Why not let the elections happen, when the Yanks leave take over? Right???

WRONG!
Elections in Afghanistan happened. (with litle fan fare) because of Bush. And now in the deepest darkest parts of the middle east, they are happening.

Syrians and the Iranians and the saudis and every other ugly dictator are scared that it is going to work.

"you can't force Democracy upon these people"

These people??? Ah todays tolerant and loving left.

Imo, it's pretty damn simple: you can't force Democracy upon these people. They MUST want it for themselves.

If they don't want it, then we have no business telling them otherwise, because democracy isn't for everybody, no matter how pathetically the Bush Administration tells us otherwise.

I don't know what war you're watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy. The problem is that you have a bunch of gun crazy , throat-slitting murderers and thugs going around killing and intimidating people. In some places, mostly Sunni controlled areas, the people are in league with the thugs.

We've seen this before, as recently as the 1960s and early 70s here in the US. We've called them White Supremists, Night Riders, Ku Klux Klan, and the Nazis. Frankly to hear you so cavalierly dismiss these people as not wanting democracy or not wanting it bad enough is appalling. Is that what you would have said at the time about Auschwitz or the deep south in the late 1800s and 1900 all the way up to the 70s? Because you're mouthing the very words they used at the time to justify their hatred and bigotry of not only blacks but Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Indians.

And you're attitude about people wanting democracy is the same attitude that led Prince Harry to make a "poor choice in costume" recently.

Most white southerners thought their slaves were happy to be slaves, and used the fact that they fought alongside plantation owners to protect the plantation from the northen soldiers.

We're not the bad guys here. We're trying to give these people a choice. The bad guys are the ones trying to stop them from making it.

Craig wrote: "Oh, but of course. Now we'll just tell them they need to be a Christian democracy (or is it theocracy?) instead of a Muslim dictatorship."

What the heck is "Christian democracy"? Indonesia is a Democracy, and it's a Muslim nation. The ancient Greeks were Pagans, and they lived in a Democratic society. And exactly what political party did Jesus belong to?

The fact of the matter is, Democracy is the government of choice (pun intended) around the world these days, and has little to do with your dislike for all things Bush.

"Why are we in Iraq? The answer is simple: Bush believed that Saddam was capable of staging the next 9/11."

No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.

Beware simple answers. Occam's razor is a guideline, not a rule.

PAD

Peter said No. Bush wanted the oil;

You forgot to mention the Afghanistan pipeline that we attacked Afghanistan to secure also.

It makes me sick when people who are famous say something and the liberals automatically believe it's true. How many people have you brainwashed with that rhetoric?

Why don't you say: "In my opinion, Bush wanted the oil...."

Sheesh!!!!

Peter said (although the Bush connections to the Saudis pretty much preclude it.)

So now you're accusing the President of having interests in another country and betraying out country to protect his interests. Do you sit up late at night thinking of this stuff?

OMG, I've seen it all now. A freedom countdown applet. LMAO!!!!!!!!!

What are you going to do in 2008 when you lose again, reset the timer?

LMAO!!!!!!!!

Oh sure, they WANT you to think that freedom will be here in just 1458 days 10 hours 12 minutes and 11 seconds, therby lulling you into not paying attention when Bush and Rove set into motion their "President for Life" amendment. Where did this applet come from--the National Review? Fox News? Boy, if you guys can't see an obvious conspiracy when it's staring you right in the face...

eclark: I don't know what war you're watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy.

If that was the case, then why didn't they (the Iraqi people) overthrow Saddam? Why aren't they out on the front lines fighting the insurgents?

And before you start, lack of training has nothing to do with it. Most of the soldiers who fought in the revolutionary war weren't formally trained, they just picked up a gun, were taught the basics, and had to learn the rest on the fly. Slaves weren't given a 6-week course called "Underground Railroad 101", they were just given a few tips and tricks, and figured the rest out on their own. Those groups of people wanted freedom, and training be damned, they took it.

Hell, even invading Afghanistan (which was one of the few things that Bush did that I agree with) we had more help from the inside with The Northern Alliance than what is happening in Iraq.

If the Iraqi people want freedom so bad, why is the US doing all the heavy lifting? Why aren't the Iraqi people confronting the insurgents?

Bottom line, if I were convinced that teh Iraqi people would sacrifice all they had in the name of a democratic Iraq, and the US agreed to help them, I wouldn't have much of a problem. But as it stands, the US went into Iraq, overthrew Saddam, put a democratic government in place, then told the Iraqi people "You're gonna be a democracy and you're going to like it!", which, in my opinion, is the wrong way to go about doing this.

Or maybe I'm just watching the wrong war on tv, since the only I see is the one where US troops fight for freedom, while the only Iraqi's fighting for anything at all are the insurgents (though rumor has that there are more who are in training, but apparently don't yet feel up to the task of fighting for freedom). Anyone know what channel this other war, the one in which these freedom-hungy Iraqi's, themselves, fight for a democracy, is on?

eclark: I don't know what war you're watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy.

If that was the case, then why didn't they (the Iraqi people) overthrow Saddam? Why aren't they out on the front lines fighting the insurgents?

You're kidding right? They DID try to overthrow him right after the first Gulf war. Both the Shiites to the South and the Kurds to the north rebelled in 1991. In fact the first Bush Administration urged the Shiite and Kurd populations to overthrow Saddam. They did, thinking the US would come in and help. The US didn't, and the Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered.

I hold both Bush, Sr. and the United Nations responsible for that. But apparently Bush Sr. reckoned that he could never get UN approval to help out the uprising anyway, and Now I understand why. Turkey, to the north of Iraq is extremely fearful of a Kurdish nation splitting off from Iraq. It's one of the reasons why we had such trouble getting them to help us at the beginning of this war. The other Muslim nations in the area with the exceptions of Kuwait and Iran are mostly Sunni Muslims, and they don't particularly like the Shiite Muslims and have little incentive to help them. Plus Iraq itself was a predominately Shiite Muslim country, but Saddam and his power circle was Sunni Muslim. So with Saddam gone, the Shiites would have majority control of the country in a democratically held election. Who opposes this? Why the Sunni Muslims, of course. And where were the terroists trouble spots? Why in Fallujah and Najaf, Tikrit, etc. all Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.

If the Iraqi people want freedom so bad, why is the US doing all the heavy lifting? Why aren't the Iraqi people confronting the insurgents?

You ever wonder why the people in the inner city won't tell the police who the bad guys are, won't point out where the crack houses are, and the gangs hangouts? Well, mostly it's a deeply held mistrust of the police for past wrongs, but also when it's all said and done, when the police leave, those people still have to stay there in that neighborhood.

This isn't that much of a different scenario. The police is the US trying to organize citizens groups watch patrols. and to clean up the neighborhoods. The terrorists are the thugs and drug dealers occasionallly doing drive-bys and bombing buisnesses and families. Killing anybody who gets in there way and intimidating everyone else. If the police come in take down one drug lord and leave another drug lord will just take his place. The people know this, and so do the Iraqis.

PAD wrote: "Lessee...low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles. Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war. Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol' days indeed."

Let's see, overt racism, seperate water fountains, water hoses and mean dogs. Being arrested for just looking at a white woman, having your daddy or brother dragged out of your house at night and being lynched for talking back or getting "uppity", crosses buring in your front yard, Churches being burned or bombed. having seperate swimming pools for blacks and whites. Advocates for civil rights being outright mudered in there own front yards, or shot and killed. **Sigh** Yeah, those were the good ol' days. Miss 'em much, do ya?

YOu, on the other hand, I feel are truly trying to talk to people beyond just those who agree with you, something that is going to be vital if this country is to not split in two.

Thanks. I don't think either side (including myself) is right even 90% of the time. So while I do get frustrated at times, it is helpful to hear what others are thinking.

Iowa Jim

On a serious not though, doesn't the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.

No offense, but somethimes I wonder if some of you actually listen to what Bush is actually saying. In his speech, Bush very cearly and explicitly emphasized the word "freedom" and not democracy. He also clearly and explicitly said that each country needed to find a system that worked for them, so long as it allowed freedom to its citizens.

Based on the comments of 99% of you on this site, I would think that you would agree that freedom is important. PAD's "Freedom Clock" virtually proves my point. If you could, for 5 minutes, put aside your anger or hatred or disgust or whatever it is against Bush and consider what he actually said, you would not disagree.

The thing that was NOT in his speech, at least with any clarity, was HOW to bring freedom to others. And on that issue, I can see many of you disagreeing with Bush. Even I do at times. I think Bush actually is willing to be patient in most cases, as we were with the Soviet Union. In a few cases, military action might be necessary (or have all of you forgotten Bosnia?).

Bush is NOT trying to force an American style democracy on anyone. That is a gross misrepresentation of what he has said and even what he is currently doing in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Iowa Jim

So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.

You are kidding, right? You really don't care about the fact that Saddam was NOT isolated, that while thousands of children died from disease and malnutrition, he built his palaces, bought weapons, and put plans in place for when the embargo was lifted? Yes, it is clear now that Saddam did not regain the WMD's he had before the first Gulf War. But it is a farce to say the embargo did work in the way it was intended when you look at the bigger picture.

That is what I don't get with some of you. You make such a big deal about the innocents who have been killed during the last 3 years as we liberate the country while ignoring the far greater number who suffered and died under Saddam. We did not attack the "Garden of Eden." It was not paradise under Saddam. Far from it.

Iowa Jim

No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.

PAD, I know you believe what you wrote. But there is absolutely no proof for anything you say. You are assigning motives based on your assumptions, not on any evidence. Bush is not perfect, and I many not agree with all that he does, but he is not the ruthless, evil thug you portray him to be.

Iowa Jim

>>On a serious not though, doesn't the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.

>No offense, but somethimes I wonder if some of you actually listen to what Bush is actually saying. In his speech, Bush very cearly and explicitly emphasized the word "freedom" and not democracy. He also clearly and explicitly said that each country needed to find a system that worked for them, so long as it allowed freedom to its citizens.

No offense taken. I listen very carefully to what he says. While he has used the word "freedom" innumerable times, he has repeated multiple times over the past few months that he wants to spread democracy to the middle east.

Intersting side note, this past week he informed Congress that he was not going to push for an ammendment for a banning of gay marriage. Wasn't this the samy guy who stated that there was nothing more sacred than protecting the institution of marriage and played the gay marriage card repeatedly throughout the campaign?

While there are some who don't listen to what he is actually saying, there appear to be more who forget what he has actually said.

Fred

Jim in Iowa:

>>So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.

>You are kidding, right? You really don't care about the fact that Saddam was NOT isolated, that while thousands of children died from disease and malnutrition, he built his palaces, bought weapons, and put plans in place for when the embargo was lifted?

While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.

2 comments that must be dealt with.

From SLICK:
" Or maybe I'm just watching the wrong war on tv, since the only I see is the one where US troops fight for freedom, while the only Iraqi's fighting for anything at all are the insurgents (though rumor has that there are more who are in training, but apparently don't yet feel up to the task of fighting for freedom). Anyone know what channel this other war, the one in which these freedom-hungy Iraqi's, themselves, fight for a democracy, is on?"

ME: WHAT LEFT WING MEDIA? OH THAT LEFT WING MEDIA????

And From the Man himself.

PAD: No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.

ME: PARTLY TRUE. IF YOU WANT THE BASTARDS IN SAUDI ARABIA OUT OF POWER, YOU NEED ANOTHER OIL RESOURCE. YOU ALSO NEED TO FIGHT ONE WAR IN IRAQ, SO YOU CAN MIX THINGS UP IN 4 COUNTRIES. ITS A STRATEGY THING. IF YOU LOOK AT A MAP. IRAN IS SURROUNDED. THE SAUDIS ARE NERVOUS AND THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES ARE WONDERING WHY WE DON'T GET ELECTIONS.

SECONDLY, IF THE AWFUL TERRIBLE OIL HUNGRY NEO-CONS REALLY WANTED CHEAP OIL, THEY JUST HAVE TO CHANGE ONE SOLE SOLITARY POLICY.

DUMP SUPPORT TO ISREAL.

WE IN THE WEST WOULD BE BATHING IN THE BLACK STUFF, IF ONLY WE DO THAT.

BUT WE DON;T. BECASUE THE ISRAELI CASUSE IS JUST AND RIGHT.

AND IF ALL OF YOU SELF-HATING WESTERNERS WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU WOULD SEE THE TRUTH. SOMETIMES WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.

Anthony X:

>AND IF ALL OF YOU SELF-HATING WESTERNERS WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU WOULD SEE THE TRUTH. SOMETIMES WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.

Don't mistake disagreement of governmental policy and critical evaluation of it with self hatred. I love this country, its freedoms and the potential that it has. This love does not mean a free pass when I disagree with its current administration or policies. In fact, that love is the reason that I speak out about it when I am deeply troubled.

I suspect that there is a similar love from most of the U.S. posters that respond here, regardless of their political leanings.

Fred

No offense taken. I listen very carefully to what he says. While he has used the word "freedom" innumerable times, he has repeated multiple times over the past few months that he wants to spread democracy to the middle east.

One criticism of Bush that is true is that he is not as "nuanced" in how he says things. That is not the same as saying in practice he is incapable of practicing it in making actual policy. This is one example. Bush has never said that an American form of democracy must be in place, but he has used the words "freedom" and "democracy" somewhat interchangeably. Since the inagaural speech is obviously meant to be heard around the world, I do think his choice to use the word "freedom" is important and indicates what he believes and means.

(Overall I liked the speech, but even I wanted a little more nuance than he gave. He was not advocating that we imposed freedom militarily, but it would have helped if he had used the fall of the Soviet Union more clearly as an example that our push for freedom was a long term goal.

Intersting side note, this past week he informed Congress that he was not going to push for an ammendment for a banning of gay marriage. Wasn't this the samy guy who stated that there was nothing more sacred than protecting the institution of marriage and played the gay marriage card repeatedly throughout the campaign?

Actually, Bush was very late to come out (no pun intended) on this issue. He has never been the staunch defender of marriage that many conservatives have wanted him to be. He has not flip flopped on his beliefs on this issue, he has simply said he is not going to spend his time making the passage of the ammendment a priority. If it did get passed in congress, he would support it. He is still against gay marriage. But near the end of the campaign, he definitely opened the door to the possibility of civil unions. So his comment does not surprise me in the least. It is consistent with the last 4 years. (And once again, on the domestic side, Bush is much more moderate than many of his critics want to admit, and than some of his supporters want to see.)

Iowa Jim

While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.

That is the first I have heard that statistic. Can you post your source? It would also help to know the statistics for various areas of the country. For example, in the places where insurgents are blowing up trucks, I can believe this is true. And that is a crucial difference. Saddam was making a deliberate choice to withhold food from the children. We are not. There are many relief organizations that worked hard to bring food and medicine to those in need after the war, but the insurgents deliberately targeted them and so most have left the country. It is wrong to in any way imply we are choosing to withhold food from those in need as Saddam did, because that is not the case.

Iowa Jim

Follow up to my comments about Bush: His father is now having to do the nuancing (clarification) of GW's speech:

"People want to read a lot into it - that this means new aggression or newly assertive military forces," former President Bush told reporters during an informal visit to the White House briefing room. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom"

"It doesn't mean instant change in every country - that's not what he intended," Bush said about his son's second inaugural address.

Guess it depends on your "bias" for or against Bush. I took his words in the way Father Bush portrays them, but clearly some of you did not. As I said above, I do think Bush was not as clear on this as I would have liked, so he did leave the door open to misinterpretation.

Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050123/D87PPBDG4.html

Iowa Jim

Jim:

>>While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.

>That is the first I have heard that statistic. Can you post your source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html

I originally read it in other sources, but don't have them immediately handy.

>It would also help to know the statistics for various areas of the country.

This particular article wasn't clear on regions, though I'm not sure that it really matters as hungry children are hungry children. Of particular note is the following info from that article, which puts things in perspective *Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world*

"The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti."

>For example, in the places where insurgents are blowing up trucks, I can believe this is true. And that is a crucial difference. Saddam was making a deliberate choice to withhold food from the children.

Saddam is a scumbag.

>We are not.

Though the consequences of the invasion seem pretty clear. There is an indication that the malnutrition rate had been falling up until the invasion. It has doubled since.

>There are many relief organizations that worked hard to bring food and medicine to those in need after the war, but the insurgents deliberately targeted them and so most have left the country.

These agencies do not answer to, are not directed by nor are they directly influenced by the U.S. government.

>It is wrong to in any way imply we are choosing to withhold food from those in need as Saddam did, because that is not the case.

That is why I made absolutely no implication towards that point. Deliberatly withholding food is a blatant crime against humanity. These kids are starving as a consequence of, at least in part, of this country's actions. We do bear some responsibility for this situation.

Fred

Just as an aside to the whole 60s thing from earlier, say what you want about the 60s, but IMO, they had ALOT better music we have these days. In fact, most of the "music" these days I wouldn't even call music. Gah! The 60s had the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and tons of other great artists (mainly the British bands, imo, but their were a few really good amaerican bands, like the Beach Boys). Just for that alone, I'd rather be living in the 60s (but then, just like PAD said, there was also the moon landing, civil rights movement, and many other events. The 60s was a powerful era. The 2000s, so far, imo, are pretty much a wastelandl. Heck I might even like the 90s better then this. *shivers* At least we had Clinton and he was a pretty good president, imo, compared to Bush).

Anyway, to the main topic: I agree with PAD. The war should be stopped.

I find that the war is pretty pointless. We should have gone after Bin Laden & his people after 9/11 and got THEM instead of going after Saddam and his people!! And I think there are any number of ways we could have gone after Bin Laden & co. without a war being needed (I mean, come on, why do we have the CIA anyway?! Of course, if the CIA had been doing their job...9/11 would have never happened. lol. Nevermind. I still think we could have found a way though).

I also agree with PAD's views on why Bush is at war with Iraq. Its not to stop another 9/11 from happening! Come on! If we wanted to do THAT, we would have gotten Bin Laden & his people. But THEY are still out there. THEY could prob find a way to attack us whenever they wanted. In fact, it might be easier now then it was around 9/11, since we're distracted with a war with Iraq..who never did a thing to us for the most part, expect rise Gas prices on us.

Bush just mainly, I think, wanted to finish his dad's war. His dad went after Iraq and couldn't get it, so now Bush Jr. has to get 'em. Bet Bush Jr. even talks to his dad every night about this war!

Call me what you want. I don't believe in this whole Liberal or conservative stuff. I believe in thinking for yourself. Looking at the world around you and coming to your own opinions on whats going on.

And I believe in free speech. I think people have every right to come out and say what they want about Bush. Good or bad. ANYBODY can say what they think about him. And we don't have to 'deal with it' and 'get over it'. Its a free country!! We can whine all we want about Bush!!!

DF2506
" In fact, I wish I'd hear a little bit more whining. I'm tired of how the media protrays Bush and the war."

It is a fact that fighting continued well into 1946 in Germany.

First I've heard of it.

It is a fact that Saddam KICKED out the UN inspectors from 97-2002. WHY???

And? There are still no WMD, even with no inspectors around.

It is a fact that Saddam contributed to Palestinian terror.

Are the Palestinians attacking the US? Was Saddam?

No.

It is a fact that Syrian and Iranian and Al Quada fighters are currently involved in the TERROR! Why?

I don't think that anybody is doubting their involvement. The FACT however is it that these groups were not in Iraq (or not openly fighting) until we took Saddam out of power.

We've created more terrorists, something that conservatives apparently are blissfully ignorant of.

So let me ask you. Why not let the elections happen, when the Yanks leave take over? Right???

Umm, come again?

For one, could you imagine elections here in the US if, say, we said that the state of Ohio couldn't vote for whatever reason.
Do you think that comes across then as a valid election?

If you want the truth about Bush, take what he says and you'll get the exact opposite.

I know that your trying in your own style to state strong protest against Bush's soc. sec. plan and the war in Iraq. And I think you've gotten your point across, but to me it seems heartless to use deaths as satistics to prove your point. The same logic could be used to "calculate" how much money soc. sec. lost because of 911, but somehow that thought never entered my mind when thinking about the horror of that event.

eclark: You're kidding right? They DID try to overthrow him right after the first Gulf war. Both the Shiites to the South and the Kurds to the north rebelled in 1991. In fact the first Bush Administration urged the Shiite and Kurd populations to overthrow Saddam. They did, thinking the US would come in and help. The US didn't, and the Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered.

I hold both Bush, Sr. and the United Nations responsible for that. But apparently Bush Sr. reckoned that he could never get UN approval to help out the uprising anyway, and Now I understand why. Turkey, to the north of Iraq is extremely fearful of a Kurdish nation splitting off from Iraq. It's one of the reasons why we had such trouble getting them to help us at the beginning of this war. The other Muslim nations in the area with the exceptions of Kuwait and Iran are mostly Sunni Muslims, and they don't particularly like the Shiite Muslims and have little incentive to help them. Plus Iraq itself was a predominately Shiite Muslim country, but Saddam and his power circle was Sunni Muslim. So with Saddam gone, the Shiites would have majority control of the country in a democratically held election. Who opposes this? Why the Sunni Muslims, of course. And where were the terroists trouble spots? Why in Fallujah and Najaf, Tikrit, etc. all Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.

Ok... nice history lesson, but how does any of that excuse the Sunni's who do want "freedom" doing not much, and the Shitte's who want freedom doing nothing? I'm only asking because of Bushes rearview justification of this war, which amounts to "Everyone wants to be free, God says so", and if they want a free Iraq so badly, why aren't they behaving like it? That bothers me.

You ever wonder why the people in the inner city won't tell the police who the bad guys are, won't point out where the crack houses are, and the gangs hangouts? Well, mostly it's a deeply held mistrust of the police for past wrongs, but also when it's all said and done, when the police leave, those people still have to stay there in that neighborhood.

This isn't that much of a different scenario. The police is the US trying to organize citizens groups watch patrols. and to clean up the neighborhoods. The terrorists are the thugs and drug dealers occasionallly doing drive-bys and bombing buisnesses and families. Killing anybody who gets in there way and intimidating everyone else. If the police come in take down one drug lord and leave another drug lord will just take his place. The people know this, and so do the Iraqis.

This is different than that, much different... first of all, police won't "leave", suddenly leaving any neighborhood to fend for itself. And secondly, I'm asking why don't Iraqi's clean up their own backyard, with the US in a supporting role? ...as opposed to the situation now, in which the US cleans up after them (well, after ourselves, for causing this mess in the first place), and the Iraqi people kinda shrug and go "if you want to"?

That is why I made absolutely no implication towards that point. Deliberatly withholding food is a blatant crime against humanity. These kids are starving as a consequence of, at least in part, of this country's actions. We do bear some responsibility for this situation.

If the details of this story are true (and I am assuming they are), then yes, we do bear some responsibility. However, the insurgents bear far more. The insurgents have far more to gain by this being true than we do, and they will do everything they can to see it continue. And that is a blatant crime against humanity.

Iowa Jim

Actually, concerning Bush's words relating to his actions, I found The Daily Show's "Bush vs. Bush" very informative. I think it's still on their site at www.comedycentral.com

I think your rose-colored glasses need a cleaning. In just one year alone, 1968, there was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (which, by the way, killed nearly 550 U.S. soldiers in ONE WEEK, and wounded more than 2,500 more); the My Lai massacre; the Martin Luther King Jr assassination; the Robert Kennedy assassination; the bloody, savage riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago; a series of nation-wide bombings and murders by the Weather Underground and other assorted anarchist groups; the horrible race riots (and resulting fires and looting) in almost every major city in the country that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses; the election in November 1968 of Richard Nixon; and plenty of other unrest and mayhem that bubbled around the U.S. that "idyllic" year.

PAD never claimed that the 1960s' were idyllic; his point (as I perceived it) was that some very positive events, trends, and developments took place during that particular decade. You are quite correct in pointing out that alot of negative things took place during the same period, but that doesn't nullify the positives, now does it? Every single year in recorded human history is marked by triumph and tragedy, and neither is nullified by the other. I can say that 1945 was a spectacular year because Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were finally beaten and the extermination of European Jewry halted, but in that same year, millions of people died horribly and unnecessarily.

Fond recollections of a certain point in time in no way implies rose-coloured glasses.

Maybe those 30 million aborted babies would've been useful...

John, you assume that any significant number of those 30 million babies were viable. It's really silly to characterize abortion as just a method of birth control (not that you were specifically, but in general I've noticed that opponents of abortion seem to think that's what happens). A lot of abortions happen because the fetus is severly deformed or has other major genetic problems, or in some instances might be "crack babies", or would kill the mother during birth. It's not a black and white issue.

Monkeys.

So, your proposition is that abortions are performed almost exclusively for medical reasons and that these fetuses would not have been able to live their lives. Do you have anything to substantiate that? Whether you believe abortion is murder or not (I'm undecided), if we're going to have this discussion then we ought not to discard 30 million lives.

i don't have any statistics handy, but I never said that abortions were performed almost exclusively for medical reasons. I just don't like the characterization of abortions being performed almost exclusively as birth control. I'm also saying that "30 million" lives is a bit misleading, because many of them would not have lived anyway, and in the context of the current social security discussion, many of the ones that did live would not have been able to be productive members of society and thus contribute to S.S. Again, I haven't dug up an exact numbers, I'm just trying to point out that the whole issue is muddy when you use a statistic or a number that is generalized (i.e. 30 million abortions were performed) instead of more specific (x number were performed for medical reasons, while z were performed for shits and giggles.).

Monkeys.

Monkeys, just what number (somewhere below the 30 million number) would be an acceptable number of non medical necessary abortions for our society to practice?