Ted Kennedy

[Auburn85 432]

He's spewing bad info again.

He thinks that Bush is going to cut SS checks by 33%. Give me a break.

He wants to work hard at defeating Bush's plan to cripple the elders.

He LEFT out some key info:

At this rate we are on now, in 2042 we may have to cut SS by 27%

By 2078, it would be cut by 33%. So I think the Baby Boomers will be ok.

I just heard this on O'Reilly.

He gave the quote from a website. It was some kind of Social Security website

[Auburn85 432]

I, personally don't like the guy. He has vocally called Bush a liar.

I think he got his feelings hurt, when he stepped over party lines to help pass NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.

Then, it got underfunded, but that's mainly due to security issues.

So I think he feels, Bush made him look bad

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

This isn't the website O' Reilly was talking about, but I did find some info.

Kennedy tried to say that Bush will cut SS, this is obsurd

[Tigermike 3,053]

He's spewing bad info again.

He thinks that Bush is going to cut SS checks by 33%. Give me a break.

He wants to work hard at defeating Bush's plan to cripple the elders.

He LEFT out some key info:

At this rate we are on now, in 2042 we may have to cut SS by 27%

By 2078, it would be cut by  33%. So I think the Baby Boomers will be ok.

I just heard this on O'Reilly.

He gave the quote from a website. It was some kind of Social Security website

138505[/snapback]

Kennedy does not stop at bad info when a whopper of a lie is available.

He LEFT out some key info:

He did that after Chappaquiddick as well!

The dems strategy is to not worry about SS untill the checks start bouncing.

So I think he feels, Bush made him look bad

138508[/snapback]

Ted Kennedy needs no help in looking bad!

[Auburn85 432]

This is quoted from Ted Kennedy on Social Security:

Social Security is fundamental to the integrity of that safety net. Never before - until now - has any President, Republican or Democrat, attacked the basic guarantee of Social Security. Never before - until now - has any President, Republican or Democrat, proposed a cut in Social Security benefits. Yet President Bush is talking not just about a cut, but an incredible 33 percent cut. We must oppose it - and we will defeat it.

We will not let any President turn the American dream into a nightmare for senior citizens and a bonanza for Wall Street.

The biggest threat to Social Security today is not the retirement of the baby boomers. It's George Bush and the Republican Party.

Here's the rest of his statement

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/stateme...2005112713.html

:huh:

[bigsixfive 328]

He needs a bro.

(From Seinfeld, if you've forgotten)

[DKW 86 7,440]

Since when did facts get in a Libs way?

[Auburn85 432]

I've only heard about Ted Kennedy's SS story on Fox News. I've yet to hear it anywhere else

[DKW 86 7,440]

Was on Cspan, Natl Press Club Speech.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

In principle, I like the idea of privatizing SS. But the sticky wicket that Bush has got to figure out is the issue of transition costs. They are astronomical. Just to absorb those costs, it's estimated that benefits would have to be cut by about a third to make up for that deficit.

If it can be done, SS could eventually become a much better overall program that provides more than just the bare minimum for people. But it's got to be done right.

[Auburn85 432]

Kennedy has declared the WAR IN IRAQ a "castatrophic failure"

Thanks for the tip Ted, I believe every word you say

[Auburn85 432]

To me, that is disreguarding what the troops have accomplished,plus he said, the troops are the problem rather than the solution

[Auburn85 432]

"We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution"

http://www.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/...2005127703.html

Please read

Thanks

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

In principle, I like the idea of privatizing SS.  But the sticky wicket that Bush has got to figure out is the issue of transition costs.  They are astronomical.  Just to absorb those costs, it's estimated that benefits would have to be cut by about a third to make up for that deficit.

If it can be done, SS could eventually become a much better overall program that provides more than just the bare minimum for people.  But it's got to be done right.

138775[/snapback]

The problem is we need a long term solution. It has to be championed by a politically secure administration and then be seen through to completion by a succession of willing Congresses. Not an easy task.

True, the transition costs will be huge. But not nearly as huge as the cost of making no changes and keeping the status quo. SS right now is an enormous Ponzi Scheme. It's solvent as long as there are way more workers paying into the system then retire-ees ... retire-ies ... ... retired people drawing benefits out of it. As those numbers reverse (and they will, it's only a matter of time before the Baby Boomers retire in huge numbers) SS as we know it comes to a screeching halt. Better to talk about making changes & deciding on a course of action now while there is still time before the crash, fall, stuff hits the fan, <insert favorite doomsday metaphor here.>

Ted Kennedy is simply doing the thing he does best -- pandering.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Kennedy should be censured by the US Senate for his comments. I'm writing my 2 Senators, and I strongly suggest that others do the same. His comments are beyond the pale. Same goes w/ Barbara Boxer.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Kennedy should  be censured by the US Senate for his comments. I'm writing my 2 Senators, and I strongly suggest that others do the same. His comments are beyond the pale. Same goes w/ Barbara Boxer.

142215[/snapback]

Could you cite the particular comments you think he should be censured for?

[Auburn85 432]

In principle, I like the idea of privatizing SS.  But the sticky wicket that Bush has got to figure out is the issue of transition costs.  They are astronomical.  Just to absorb those costs, it's estimated that benefits would have to be cut by about a third to make up for that deficit.

If it can be done, SS could eventually become a much better overall program that provides more than just the bare minimum for people.  But it's got to be done right.

138775[/snapback]

The problem is we need a long term solution. It has to be championed by a politically secure administration and then be seen through to completion by a succession of willing Congresses. Not an easy task.

True, the transition costs will be huge. But not nearly as huge as the cost of making no changes and keeping the status quo. SS right now is an enormous Ponzi Scheme. It's solvent as long as there are way more workers paying into the system then retire-ees ... retire-ies ... ... retired people drawing benefits out of it. As those numbers reverse (and they will, it's only a matter of time before the Baby Boomers retire in huge numbers) SS as we know it comes to a screeching halt. Better to talk about making changes & deciding on a course of action now while there is still time before the crash, fall, stuff hits the fan, <insert favorite doomsday metaphor here.>

Ted Kennedy is simply doing the thing he does best -- pandering.

142212[/snapback]

I agree.

This administration and previous ones have been known to take money out of the SS fund and use it for the general fund.

What would partially privatizing do........................ keeps the governments money craving hands off of it.

Be honest, do you think our money has a better chance in the government's hands or to possibly grow in the stock market?

[Auburn85 432]

"We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States.  The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution"

http://www.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/...2005127703.html

Please read

Thanks

142196[/snapback]

how about this one

The Administration told us the financial costs would be paid with Iraqi oil dollars, but it is being paid with billions of American tax dollars. Another $80 billion bill for the black hole that Iraq has become has just been handed to the American people.

Who says it won't... other than Teddy? Are we supposed to just stop what we are doing in Iraq and focus on the oil?

The cost is also being paid in shame and stain on America’s good name as a beacon of human rights. Nothing is more at odds with our values as Americans than the torture of another human being. Do you think that any Americans tell their children with pride that America tortures prisoners? Yet, high officials in the Administration in their arrogance strayed so far from our heritage and our belief in fundamental human decency that they approved the use of torture—and they were wrong, deeply wrong, to do that.

How about this one.... saying that "America" tortures prisoners.

Why not a few, why not a handful? But yet , he 's going to put AMERICA in the category.

Want me to go on?

The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.

Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria

Certainly isn't pessimistic. Would he, if Clinton was pres? Something to think about

The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasn’t. Saddam Hussein’s capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didn’t. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasn’t. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn’t.

What, the insurgents, oh wait, terrorists, wee suppose to take their guns and bombs and go home? They are desperate. So they're going to do whatever they can to stop the election

[Auburn85 432]

" President Bush broke Iraq,"

priceless quote

United Nations, not the United States, should provide assistance and advice on establishing a system of government and drafting a constitution. An international meeting – led by the United Nations and the new Iraqi Government -- should be convened immediately in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East to begin that process

They wouldn't help because some were making too much money off the oil for food. So why would they want to ruin a good thing.

The book of Proverbs in the Bible teaches us that, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” It’s time for President Bush to swallow his pride and end our country’s continuing failures in Iraq and in the eyes of the world. When the President delivers the State of the Union Address next week, I hope he will demonstrate his intention to do that. The danger is very real that if he does not, our leadership in the world will be permanently lost. We cannot let that happen.

Don't you love it when Teddy uses the Bible

[Tigermike 3,053]

Here is a recent pronouncement by Ted Kennedy. Of course, where prevaricators gather, like sharks sensing blood in the water, one always finds the portly and pickled Ted Kennedy, who provided this insight on the eve of Iraq's first democratic election: "We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe -- the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation. ... Our military presence has become part of the problem, not the solution." Heck, who needs Baghdad Bob or Peter Arnett when Kennedy's on the case?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Kennedy should  be censured by the US Senate for his comments. I'm writing my 2 Senators, and I strongly suggest that others do the same. His comments are beyond the pale. Same goes w/ Barbara Boxer.

142215[/snapback]

Could you cite the particular comments you think he should be censured for?

142218[/snapback]

Comments presented here by others per Kennedy pertaining to Iraq. As for Boxer, for her vicious and factually inaccurate attacks on Dr. Rice. The fact that Ms Boxer is actually using her tirade against Dr Rice as a fund raising gimmick is utterly asinine.

TexasTiger, you can pretend you are unaware of what was said and play the partisan game all you want, but IMO, these comments far exceed the bounds of decency in reasonable discourse.

Joe Lieberman even agrees. That should serve as an example as to just how far to the Left the Dem party has gone in just the last 4 years.

[Auburn85 432]

TT, what's your take on Tedy Kennedy speech about the war and the troops?

Did he go to far.

Anyone else can comment also

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Kennedy should  be censured by the US Senate for his comments. I'm writing my 2 Senators, and I strongly suggest that others do the same. His comments are beyond the pale. Same goes w/ Barbara Boxer.

142215[/snapback]

Could you cite the particular comments you think he should be censured for?

142218[/snapback]

Comments presented here by others per Kennedy pertaining to Iraq. As for Boxer, for her vicious and factually inaccurate attacks on Dr. Rice. The fact that Ms Boxer is actually using her tirade against Dr Rice as a fund raising gimmick is utterly asinine.

TexasTiger, you can pretend you are unaware of what was said and play the partisan game all you want, but IMO, these comments far exceed the bounds of decency in reasonable discourse.

Joe Lieberman even agrees. That should serve as an example as to just how far to the Left the Dem party has gone in just the last 4 years.

142407[/snapback]

I scanned his speech, but frankly didn't care to read the whole thing. It may surprise you that all "progressives" don't hang on Teddy's every word. I sincerely asked specifically what comments you found so objectionable since, I believe, only nine Senators have been censured in our history.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Kennedy has declared the WAR IN IRAQ a "castatrophic failure"

Thanks for the tip Ted, I believe every word you say

142087[/snapback]

Bush declared it a "catasrophic success." Clarification, please.

[Auburn85 432]

Saddam 's captured, his 2 sons are dead, a couple of Zarqawi's top partners were just rencently arrested, elections will be tomorrow.

Most Iraqi's are happy Saddam is out of power.

The attacks are by the minority , not the majority.

But the attacks need to be lessened. It's far near from a catastrophic success, but it's far from a catastrophic failure.

If it was a "catastrophic failure" the elections wouldn't even be in the near future.