Bush is getting desperate

[TexasTiger 13,021]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

[Auburn85 432]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

148953[/snapback]

I'm not going to accuse you of saying Bush lied about this or that, but many have called Bush a liar without ligitimate proof.

But back to your issue, I'm not going to call you a liar.

[Sjoerd 0]

I will say that what Starr did was 10 times worse than what Bush's supposed friend did to him with the tapes.

I guess that's why they only released 10% of them.

I just wonder why these tapes weren't released prior to the electon. I mean everyone tried to do something before the election.

Because Rove would've had him shot first? Seriously, the tapes were not made by an enemy of W. Think about it. The timing indicates the White House needed a distraction from the fact that a non-credentialed, alias-using prostitute was given access to the White House press briefings. They figured that terror alerts were getting a little long in the tooth, I guess. Speaking of which, where is the outrage over Ridge admitting that the terror alerts during the '04 campaign were politically motivated?

And besides, I think they tried MEMOGATE in 2000 and it didn't work then.

Actually, the allegations (Bush did NOT show up for duty) were as true then as they were now. The alleged illegitimacy of documents supporting it have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the basic point: that W was, and is a deserter. That it is hard to find documentation is more of a testament to the power of My Daddy Is A Bigshot than anything else.

To put it another way: all of this could be easily defused by someone, anyone, even a janitor, coming forward to say they saw W perform his duties as assigned in 1972. The absence of such a testimony is, while not proof, exquisitely telling. This could and would have been put to rest in 1999, but it has not.

[Sjoerd 0]

Let's just don't pay SS .  This administration and previous ones have taken money out of the SS fund and used it for general purposes.

No, they have borrowed against it. Which is deplorable. Why do you think Gore was harping on the "lock box" the Republican party was making so much fun of? It was specifically designed to prevent this.

If we privitize SS, then the government can't touch the money for general purposes.

That hardly matters if doing so incurs so much overhead that the entire system has to be killed off in a few decades. Please do your research. Britain tried pretty much the same thing being (vaguely) proposed now in the 80s, and guess what? They are now planning to FIX it, because 25-30% of the money disappeared in overhead and losses.

Guess which system they are using as a model for their overhaul?

That's right. The current US model of Social Security.

I know its waaaaaaay off subject, but I just wonder how Kerry would have been able to pass his health care plan for every American?

By repealing the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. Like he said. Repeatedly. Please do not feign ignorance.

And I wonder why we can't have the same reitrement plan as our leaders in Congress?

I agree. 100%. The answer, of course, is state-run health care (which is working, beautifully, in just about every nation in Western civilization except the United States). Just ask yourself: when talking to a doctor, should he/she be in it to get you well, or to make a profit?

[Sjoerd 0]

Umm....the story IS standing by itself. Bush didn't drag this kid out, some reporter wrote it up as an human interest story.

That is hilarious. I'm sure this 9 year old called the White house and said: "Can I please, please defend your plans for Social Security?"

Come on. Please. Come on.

This wasn't a W.H. press release. How about giving credit to some dedicated citizens for caring enough to do something for a change. 

Yes it was, and you know it. Anyway, are we now calling 9 year olds dedicated citizens? I, regardless of his mastery of fact and innate intelligence, would call him a kid.

To put it another way, at 9 years old, I would have kicked your sorry behind in Trivial Pursuit. I was 1 year away of skipping a grade solely because my parents were pursuing a prudent wait-and-see approach. I had no, singular, friggin' clue about how to run a household, business, let alone the largest economy on the planet. For me do have done so at that time would have been ridiculous and disengenuous.

Do not make me trot out the old adage about the wise man/woman.

And yes, privitization IS  a wonderful thing.

REALLY?! That's fantastic. I'm sure everyone can attest to the wonderful things that happened to their phone service since Ma Bell was broken up (oh, wait, higher fees for crappier service... never mind), the wonderful things that happened to their health care since HMO's got free reign (oh, wait, that must be why it took 7 hours for MY HMO to put 24 stitches in my arm when I fell on a glass)... Wait.

Wait.

Give me one example of an industry that has objectively gotten better since privitazation.

Enron?

Worldcom/MCI?

Yes, they have done so much good for the average person.

I'm fully in favor for it.

There are two options:

1. You have substantial holdings in an investment firm (Schwab, TWP, blah blah blah). If so, of course you're in favor for it, because you will make oodles of money off of them fleecing the elderly whilst investing their supposed SECURITY money. Hey. More power to ya.

2. You have drank the Kool Aid of Reaganomics, and the Kool Aid of Free Enterprise Is Always Better Than The Government. If so, you scare the bejeezus out of me with the level of your delusion. Need I remind you of the past 3 major, painful recessions? Early 80s, early 90s, early 00s. Need I remind you of the political affilliation of the President in office at the time?

SS should have never occured in the 1st place. Not as the ponzi scheme it is now.

Now you're degenerating into being callous, willfully ignorant, paid by the current White House to lie or a combination of the former.

Before Social Security, after a lifetime of back-breaking work, the elderly had the option of

1. Live with one of your children, and have them support you

2. Soup kitchens

When you say SS should never have happened, you are saying that the elderly should have gone to their children, or Loaves And Fishes for their daily meals.

Never mind your intentions (and truthfully, this is so hurtful that I could care less about your intentions), what you are implying is so callous I cannot believe your parents would allow such a statement to come out of your mouth. You should hope there is no afterlife. If there is, I think you will find several million elderly readly to kick your teeth in for even suggesting this.

Phaugh.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The most hateful thing in the world is when the Gov't takes $ from you at the point of a gun and gives it to someone else. Spare my your mock indignation about my comments being 'callous'. Thats simply absurd. Elderly people aren't a 'species', idiot. They are simply younger folk who have cheated death longer than others. Good for them, I plan on being old one day. Or not, we'll see.

Whether there is or isn't an after life, I doubt very much many folks will appear in the form of their latter years. If you believe in heaven, Valhalla, Xanadu.....what ever, I think we all expect to appear in perfect health...somewhere in the 18 - 25 range ( your after life may vary ) And why would they be mad at me ? For a life time of poor choices on their part? Screw that! If they were lied to by the Gov't ( which they were ) all their life, how is that anyone's fault but their own?

[DKW 86 7,440]

Joe you are lost! So lost. How many lies did you just roll off? Man, how deluded are you? You really dont believe a word of that propaganda do you? No one with a brain could.

Gore's Lockbox had easy keys to get back into it. 50% =1 would have done it.

SS is a train wreck. A grossly oveerextended train wreck and you, like all Dems, think the only answer is..."Dont change a thing, throw more money at it."

Nationalized HealthCare is a horrible idea and one that is seen as such as members of the Elite in every other country in the world flock here for healthcare. No one can be denied healthcare in this country anyway, hospitals must take them if they take govt funds. Canada and UK are just ludicrously backward compared to our level of healthcare.

Of course it takes a Fed Govt moron to really screw something up, the Dems now say let them run everything.

If you are going to come on here and try to be useful, at least get your facts somewhere near correct. The dems raided SS funds for years under O'Neill.

There are other alternatives other than "JUST RAISE TAXES." You being a liberal, like all Liberals, are too slow to figure that out however

[AURaptor 1,126]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

148953[/snapback]

I misread this line, " Bush's plan does not maintain a safety net or address the shortfall. It increases the shortfall." I thought that was TT's remark. If I was mistaken and TT didn't say that, then I retract my 'liar' remark directed toward him.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

148953[/snapback]

I misread this line, " Bush's plan does not maintain a safety net or address the shortfall. It increases the shortfall." I thought that was TT's remark. If I was mistaken and TT didn't say that, then I retract my 'liar' remark directed toward him.

149001[/snapback]

That's my line. Explain why its a lie and back it up with good sources.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

148953[/snapback]

I misread this line, " Bush's plan does not maintain a safety net or address the shortfall. It increases the shortfall." I thought that was TT's remark. If I was mistaken and TT didn't say that, then I retract my 'liar' remark directed toward him.

149001[/snapback]

That's my line. Explain why its a lie and back it up with good sources.

149004[/snapback]

Then I stand by my statement. The Presidents plan in no way endangers the 'safety net'. Those getting SS now or in the very near future will continue to get what they're due. Bush's plan in no way changes that. You're the one who made the claim that Bush's claim doesn't offer a safety net, why don't YOU start w/ backing that up.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

If the Dems and folks like TexasTiger would just stop lying about Bush's plan, things might get done around here. But, alas.....I ask too much.

148917[/snapback]

This is the second time I've been called a liar on this thread without any substantiation. Throwing around terms like "dumb" is one thing, but if you're going to call someone a liar, back it up and make it good, or else you have no character at all. But, alas...

148953[/snapback]

I misread this line, " Bush's plan does not maintain a safety net or address the shortfall. It increases the shortfall." I thought that was TT's remark. If I was mistaken and TT didn't say that, then I retract my 'liar' remark directed toward him.

149001[/snapback]

That's my line. Explain why its a lie and back it up with good sources.

149004[/snapback]

Then I stand by my statement. The Presidents plan in no way endangers the 'safety net'. Those getting SS now or in the very near future will continue to get what they're due. Bush's plan in no way changes that. You're the one who made the claim that Bush's claim doesn't offer a safety net, why don't YOU start w/ backing that up.

149053[/snapback]

If you're going to discuss concepts you don't understand, you shouldn't be so cocky and obnoxious. Bush must first find a way to finance about 2 trillion in transition costs to give the immediate assurances you refer to. What about the "safety net" for people after those currently on or that will soon go on SS? And you conveniently ignored that you also called me a liar for the assertions that it does not address the shortfall, and in fact it increases it. This is indisputable. You've got nothing but insults.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TT... I guess I find that insults are necessary for folks who simply play politics and dismiss what ever Bush offers up, out of hand. Reasonable discussion is reserved for those who have a sincere interest in dealing w/ the issues. Saying that Bush's plan offers no safety net is pattently dishonest, and while may not be technically a 'lie', it certainly is deceptive.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

TT... I guess I find that insults are necessary for folks who simply play politics and dismiss what ever Bush offers up, out of hand.  Reasonable discussion is reserved for those who have a sincere interest in dealing w/ the issues. Saying that Bush's plan offers no safety net is pattently dishonest, and while may not be technically a 'lie', it certainly is deceptive.

149063[/snapback]

Thanks for explaining why you are incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TT... I guess I find that insults are necessary for folks who simply play politics and dismiss what ever Bush offers up, out of hand.  Reasonable discussion is reserved for those who have a sincere interest in dealing w/ the issues. Saying that Bush's plan offers no safety net is pattently dishonest, and while may not be technically a 'lie', it certainly is deceptive.

149063[/snapback]

Thanks for explaining why you are incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion.

149068[/snapback]

I know you are, but what am I ?

(I'm rubber, you're glue..... etc. ) Had to get that out of the way first before you resorted to it.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

TT... I guess I find that insults are necessary for folks who simply play politics and dismiss what ever Bush offers up, out of hand.  Reasonable discussion is reserved for those who have a sincere interest in dealing w/ the issues. Saying that Bush's plan offers no safety net is pattently dishonest, and while may not be technically a 'lie', it certainly is deceptive.

149063[/snapback]

Thanks for explaining why you are incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion.

149068[/snapback]

I know you are, but what am I ?

(I'm rubber, you're glue..... etc. ) Had to get that out of the way first before you resorted to it.

149106[/snapback]

Actually, it wouldn't have occurred to me. But your using it does lend credence to my theory that you are actually a 13 year old girl parading as a tough guy on the internet while you paint your nails.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Actually, it wouldn't have occurred to me. But your using it does lend credence to my theory that you are actually a 13 year old girl parading as a tough guy on the internet while you paint your nails.

No shocker that you'd naturally associate the internet w/ 13 yr old girls.

Folks get into lots of trouble that way. Best watch yourself.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I am mecifully putting this thread to sleep...