State of the Union 448
travis slack writes "President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
There is no tomorrow (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.
That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.
As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destr
Re:There is no tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no tomorrow (Score:3, Funny)
Note that the author... (Score:2)
Re:There is no tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
I am also a registered Republican, although I am quite out of touch with my party. Or rather I should say that my party has become quite out of touch with the values it once held dear. It talks the talk, but it no longer walks the walk.
I also have been following the growth of the Religious Right in my party. What started as a marriage of political convenience, as a coalition, has turned into a theocracy. No longer are the members of my party governed by enlightened self-interest, but by blind ideological and theological faith in George Bush.
You speak of compromise. Would you compromise with the terrorists? Would you negotiate with Bin Laden? Can you really trust anyone for whom the ends always justifies the means? So, how should we compromise with our own domestic homegrown fundamentalists? What liberties should we give away to appease them? How much corporate welfare is acceptable? Which lies are acceptable to justify war? By compromise, you mean we should allow Bush to dismantle Social Security just a little bit?
Compromise and negotiation are possible with a reasonable person on the other side of the table. When you realize how insane the Bush agenda really is, you realize that there is no compromise.
Re:There is no tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
No it wouldn't. Everyone knows that radical factions of Islam have some beliefs that most sane people would find quite objectionable. Pointing that out isn't hate speech, as long as you don't generalize to include all Muslims. However, delusional Muslims don't make up a significant portion of the US electorate, w
Social Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life" doesn't mean the rest of us who have a fucking clue should be forced to hand over our cash.
Re:Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
They would never lie about that simply because the President is making an issue of reforming it, now would they?
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Woah, hold on there. He's not reforming it, he's destroying it. I don't care either way, but let's call a horse a horse (of course!).
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Informative)
I just checked the SSA.gov site, and if you're planning on moving to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Russia, you're out of luck.
The other thing to consider is keeping your US bank account, and just having your SS funds direct deposited. Direct deposit is also available to banks outside the US.
More info here [socialsecurity.gov].
So, how a
Re:Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to assume you realize that plenty of low income workers might have trouble funding retirement with non-existent savings.
What I can't believe is that there seems to have been no public discussion of what simple means testing might do to the system. While I don't think it's so crazy that a non-retired, previously-underemployed black woman from Alabama might need Social Security benefits, I'm completely unable to explain why my father-in-law with a $10 million estate gets a check every month.
My last idea on this was to skip the whole privatization line and offer, say, 25% refunds on the taxes paid to individuals that can show they're taking advantage of the other tax-advantaged savings opportunities they have. "Here," says the government, "take this 25%. Sorry it can't be more, but the other 75% pays to prevent poor people from eating cat food. Oh, and it also pays for benefits to future retirees who like the guaranteed benefit idea: by taking this 25% you've agreed to be at the top of the list for future means-tested benefit reductions."
Re:Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Workers are being forced to pay 12.4 percent of their income into Social Security. What if that 12.4 percent went into an IRA-like account that worker OWNED?
Social Security may provide a barely adequate retirement income, but it generates no wealth. Workers don't own their Social Security funds and have no legal right to the benefits. It is, simply, not wealth in the same way as a 401(k) plan, an IRA, or a bank account. The rich, however, have 401(k) plans at work: They have discretionary income with which to invest. They can accumulate greater wealth. The rich get richer; the poor do not.
Social Security may also lead to a greater intergenerational wealth gap. You can't inherit someone's Social Security benefits. A worker can pay 12.4 percent of his income into the system for 30 or 40 years, but, if that worker dies without children under the age of 18 or a spouse over the age of 65, none of the money is passed on to his heirs.
the wealth of more affluent people generally is inheritable. Thus, inheritance becomes a "disequalizing" force, leading to greater inequality of wealth in America. The answer is not to penalize the wealthy through inheritance taxes and such, but to allow poor workers to accumulate inheritable wealth the same way their wealthier counterparts can. Allowing them to invest their Social Security taxes would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.
Re:Social Security (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely correct, and moreover since vast majority of the value of estates over 1 million dollars is in the form of capital gains for which no taxes were ever paid, estate taxes go a long way to leveling the playing field.
The answer is not to penalize the wealthy through inheritance taxes and such,
damn I thought you were on to something. Why would you think that?
but to allow poor workers to accumulate inheritable wealth the same way their wealthier counterparts can. Allowing them to invest their Social Security taxes would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.
1) only if they die at age 65 before they SPEND their meagre savings.
2) only if they stop being poor before they die so that by the time they retire they aren't so overwhelmed with DEBT that they have any money left over from their pathetic savings to leave money in their estate.
3) only if the stock market doesn't crash between now and the time these poor people retire and cause them to lose all of their vast savings. (people constantly on the verge of bankruptcy panic under market downturns and dump their stock at a loss)
Since none of those options is likely to happen, perhaps people should just stop the whining and agree to help pay for the maintenance of senior citizens who built the damn country instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled cry babies.
Unless the asians and europeans start treating their elderly as shitty as North American's do, I don't think problems here are going to be WORSE than anywhere else.
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
They toiled and sacrificed for us. They built the country. And when they are no longer able to support themselves we bicker about not wanting to pay taxes to support them.
It is flat out pathetic. I am ashamed.
Re:Social Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Bet you it will take a hell of a long time for you to make up for that with your own investments.
(You don't actually think this is about you do you. The entire point of SS "reform" is to provide an immediate cost reduction to business by eleminating their portion of the cost.)
Re:Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social Security (Score:2)
That's why I think all this political maneuvering is so contrived. Retirement isn't going to get any cheaper, and the economy isn't going to magically grow faster to make all the PSAs look great. Everything costs what it does today because that's what it costs--circular, I know, but this is what economic equilibrium is all about.
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Informative)
According to your logic, why don't they just lower your wages? Why don't they just raise their price to the customer?
They don't do that because they do not set prices, they do not set wages, and therefore they do not set profits. The markets do that! Inefficiencies exist (Monopolies, borders, regulations),
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't understand IRAs. Money you invest in an IRA will grow far more than doubling. So you still make a ton more money. Plus, you are right, the businesses will stop paying such high payroll taxes. Which means they will have more money. Which means you can make more. Or if you are the owner of a small business, you obviously are benefiting. Democrat/Republican aside, this should be a no-bra
Re:Social Security (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were paid $55,000 a year, and told that you are responsible for 100% of your social security of $10,000, then how is this different from you getting paid $50,000 a year, with you paying $5,000 and your employer paying $5,000 ?
That money is coming from somewhere, and it certainly isn't from the generocity of your employer... its coming out of lower gross wages for the employees. Some say that's what's so insideous about the federal tax withholding plans, if the common person had to pay the full amount out of their own income at the end of the year, there would be a lot more unhappy citizens demanding lower taxes once they get that $10,000 bill in the mail.
Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this. It's not about taking money and giving it to businesses, the end goal is a run-around the federal government, another step in getting the government out of our wages, and to stop telling people that they have to give all this money into an account with poor performance. That's why half the congress is so pissed, because its going to take a huge chunk of spending capital out of the budgets, and force them to stop making so many promises with other people's money. It's a win-win, it gets the younger people more secure in higher interest accounts, returns his political party to its roots of reducing government, and defeats the opposition party on the grounds of giving more economic freedom to the masses, in a way that's more fair than anything the government could provide.
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt it. I'm self employed.
Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this.
Man... that is so funny.
Especially since I've been filling out a Form C and paying both parts for five years now.
So tell me. What is so "obvious" about my bias, and how would that change if I had a "regular" job?
The facts are very simple. Right now there is a guaranteed benefit from SS.
Right NOW I
Re:Social Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Social Security (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Social Security (Score:4, Insightful)
And, when some drunk hobo steals a car... runs a red light... and cripples you next year...
Which system will be there for you.
Next year. Not 30 years... tomorrow.
This, IMHO, is the huge flaw in the Republican plan. They want to remove the progress we have made as a society and go back to "I got mine and fsck thine".
Re:Social Security (Score:2)
Re:Social Security (Score:2)
Of course, knowing what I know now I should have taken this to the media, gotten a pro-bono legal representative, etc. But as a college student, I didn't really even know
Let freedom rain (Score:5, Interesting)
First 2004 presidential debate: 38 times [worldinprogress.org]
2005 inauguration address: 34 times [worldinprogress.org]
2005 state of the union address: a "mere" 27 times [worldinprogress.org]
Two things worth pointing out:
First, he almost never defines these terms. The only time he even comes close (in the inauguration address) he (or his speechwriters) equates freedom with making money.
Second, he often uses the words in relation to Iraq - like Pavlovian dogs he (or his speechwriters) wants to link the two concepts indelibly in people's minds. To oppose this administration's policies in Iraq is to oppose freedom itself.
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2)
Keep counting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2)
Can you cite examples for me? Free enterprise, maybe, but I don't think I ever saw dollar signs in his eyes during a speech.
Bush has defined freedom in multiple ways...deciding how your country will run through Democratic elections is one of them, certainly the one pertinent to Iraq.
--trb
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2)
Everyone who opposes the war in Iraq opposes freedom!
And I'm not a dog, Pavlovik or any other breed!
</rote overreaction>
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:4, Funny)
This criticism is brought to you from the party that doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:3, Insightful)
The definition of these words is widely known. If you want to know how he defines the word, go find a freaking dictionary.
Re:Let freedom rain (Score:2)
Don't you think the number of times it is used and in so many different ways is a bit excessive and actually lazy?
He is using the word this way because it helps him paint dissenters as being against freedom. Also it is easier than trying to actually explain the real reasons.
If politicians really wanted to fix SS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If politicians really wanted to fix SS (Score:2)
The problem: When social security asks for the load to be repaid (happens very soon), where does that money come from? The government, of course. But wait - they don't have any money, do they? That's why they needed those loans in
IT Talking Point (Score:5, Insightful)
"improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs"
So our privatization president wants to spend more public money subsidizing doctors, hospitals, pharmacos and insurance companies. The free market works great, but not when life, death and billions in profits are motivating corporations to invest in competence and efficiency.
Meanwhile, the president sees a rosy economy, while the American IT sector shrinks. All those trillions of dollars he's spending in his budgets (which he complains is "the spending appetite of the federal government" that must be restrained) were collected during the tech bubble. He's so far from interested in recovery in our industry that he ignores it entirely, while bragging about a fictional general prosperity. While remaining obsessed with hundreds of billions of dollars for the war technology that's keeping us winning hearts and minds in Iraq.
Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jobs' (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead his solution is is private accounts. And it's promoted the same way this administration does anything: fearmongering. "LOOK! Young people, Social Security is melting down! It's not gonna be here! Everybody's gonn retire and the crush is going to ruin things! You're gonna be out on the street with no one to take care of you!"
That alone should make young people suspicious. Couple that with with the fact that I don't fully understand how social security is funded. But they don't vote, so it won't matter til 45 years from now, or until we elect someone who may try to undo this. And God help that administration, because once Social Security has been privatized there will be no getting it back. Too much of a boon for the private sector; rolling dice with your money.
What's also disturbing is that some of my tax cut happy Bush supporting co-workers (ironically divorced bitter fellows for the most part) absolutely are drinking this Kool Aid. I've even heard one or two spouting, "what's wrong with YOU paying for you? I'm tired of others getting my money." For the life of me, I can't think of any Western country without a form of SECURED government provided pension, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a lynchpin.
Just wnother thing that scares me about this guy. And I won't get started on the health care account plans... BTW: Our defense budget seems to be in good shape, and QUITE solvent.
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo (Score:2)
Just because other countries do it, does it mean it is a good idea for the government to forcibly micro-manage the retiremen finances of everyone, especially those who are not indigent or needy? Is that really necessary?
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think though, that's what most people are thinking. The thought seems to be "I'm tired of PAYING for the poor or elderly." at times it smacks of selfish greed. Social Security is equa
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo (Score:2)
I know. Sometimes, I think it should be replaced with something that is the first, but not the second.
"Today's workers pay the pension of yesterdays workers, as tomorrow's workers will pay the pension of ours. It's not a tax."
Regardless of these details, it is by definition a tax, since the government is forcing you to give it money.
Both sides... (Score:2)
asbestos lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this paragraph troubling. He starts talking about fostering small business. Fair enough. But then he somehow twists this into a gripe about asbestos lawsuits. Whaa? Now, let's see, why does Bush consider hindering asbestos lawsuits important? Let's make this one multiple choice:
Why is Bush against asbestos lawsuits?
A. Most small businesses use asbestos in their daily operations.
B. The victims knew the danger and purposefully breathed in asbestos dust anyways.
C. Halliburton paid $4.2 billion to settle such a lawsuit in 1998.
D. Asbestos is a good source of vitamin E.
I think you can guess which is the right answer.
What was most surprising (Score:3, Funny)
Seperation of Facts and Fiction (Score:5, Informative)
Is this country really that divided? I mean there's no question the situation in iraq is dead serious.
And on social security privatization there are waay too many smoke dischargers working. If you want the facts available you should look here [cbpp.org].
If we have a common ground on the facts, only then you could argue wether the solidarity system currently in place is worth to be saved for the price of for example one percent of your income our if you want your lifesavings to be donated to the good cause of lockheed martin.
The level of calling-each-other-asshats is just amazing and ultimatively helps noone.
Re:Seperation of Facts and Fiction (Score:2)
Indeed:
The Social Security actuaries project that in 2018, Social Security's trust fund will hold $5.3 trillion in assets, in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds.
...
Treasury bonds are the world's most secure investment. They are the instruments that investors large and small, at home and abroad, turn to for safety, secure in the knowledge that the United States has never in its history defaulted on its bonds.
Of course, the pro
There is a problem with Social Security. (Score:3, Informative)
"Bush is Liar"
Simply put there is so much Bush-Hate that too many people posting on
The key issue here seems to be the words "Trust Fund". There is no such as a trust fund. The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund. This "run out of money" issues that some claim will not occur until 2042 is what happens when we cannot tax our way out of it.
The Social Security problem is two fold. First there are too many drains on the money. It pays for things that it should never have and to people who should never qualify. The second is that it is on the backs of twisted and failing tax system.
There is no guarantee written anywhere that you will receive benefits. The worst part is that most Americans don't realize that not only do they pay 6.2% of their income to this scheme but their employer does as well. This means that you are paying 13.4% of your income into a plan you have no guarantee of receiving payment from. If you die before you can withdraw none of your survivors benefit. If this were a private organization it would be shut down immediately as it violates so many laws its not funny. If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
The proposal to allow younger tax payers to devote a portion of their SS payments into private accounts puts some of the responsibility back to those who will benefit. There is no plan for 100% privatization. There is no plan to deny benefits promised to those who receive them. The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors. The government will still abscond with the majority of the money.
What assails my senses is the fact that so many people just don't care. they argue that the time of failure is too far away to matter. These same people freak out over issues like running out of oil in 50+ years but don't bat an eye on Social Security reform.
Face it, Social Security is really Politician Job Security. They don't care how they end up paying the benefits they just want to make sure you rely on them to do so. When you get old and gray and need the money they will frighten you that someone trying to fix the system is really out to steal it from you. They rely on your GREED and LAZINESS to promote the system as it is and too keep it as it is.
It is your money you are tossing down the rat hole. Speak up! I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment. If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family. Do you really want to tell your kids 20 years down the road that they are Shit Out of Luck because you didn't want to act simply because you could not get over yourself?
GROW UP. It is not going away. I fully expect reform to be part of the political discussion in 08 and beyond. Will you support it then? Or will you let it drag on till your collecting and just comment "its their problem, not mine".
Re: The many errors (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there is. [ssa.gov]
The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund
No, they're paid from the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. [ssa.gov]
If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
On the assumption that the employee only has one employer. I can think of tons of reasons this makes sense. Illegals sharing ssn's, for instance. The Trust Fund gets to keep all the money since if you don't report the excess tax on your federal forms, you don't get it refunded. What if a prior employer didn't actually pay those taxes? Better to have the individual on the hook than the government _and_ the individual.
The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors.
Ah, because the 401k's, 403b's, Roth IRA's, traditional IRA's, etc. we currently have are not available to young Americans and are not transferrable to heirs. Thank God Bush is finding a way to solve that problem.
I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment.
I don't even want to get into how much I lose to the Defense Department non-investment every year, or at least every year since January 2001.
If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family.
Except by dying, you DO collect. Looks like [ssa.gov] in 2003 over $25 billion was paid out in just such circumstances.
GROW UP.
Get educated on the issues. Stop listening to whoever's filling your head with these falsehoods.
I don't mind one bit. (Score:2)
Why am I happy? Because it takes drastic measures for the proles to wake up. Maybe in 2084 we'll see some positive change.
We need to fight back (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should you turn the TV off? Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue...
This is all bullshit.
Here are facts you will never hear come out of Aaron Brown's mouth...never uttered by any Faux News commentator...never scrolled across the screen in between Robert Blake trial footage and the interview with the teacher that had sex with the student...
We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.
In perspective...5 times the amount of people we lost on 9/11.
And Iraq had absolutely ZERO involvement in the 9/11 attacks. So how can any of this be justified?
How can you expect the families and friends of these innocent Iraqis to just "forgive and forget?" Would you ask the 9/11 victims to forgive Osama?
Open your fucking eyes people...we all have blood on our hands.
We can't keep draping ourselves in the flag and shield ourselves from the reality of our government. We can't put ourselves on this pedestal and demonize those who kill, and at the same time kill just the same.
According to figures recorded by the Iraq Ministry of Health, from July 2004 - Jan 2005, 3274 civilians have been killed. Out of those civilians, 1233 were killed by insurgents. 2041 were killed by coalition forces.
Who is the bad guy? Who is the enemy? Please someone, answer the fucking question.
Why are we better?
This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??
Where is the fucking dissent? Where are the voices of the other side..the reality based community? Where have all the hippies gone? When did the spirit of this nation get replaced with a bunch of complacent, detached, ignorant, apathetic FOOLS?
Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Well, they are a news channel in the Middle East, and they are very controversial as they spin their news towards a certain viewpoint of the world. Specifically, they gather their facts and present the news in a format which is construed as "propaganda." They believe that a foreign nation does not have the right to invade another, force it's government upon it, and kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Because of this belief, they show footage of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children, and other videos you will never see on any channel you can reach on your remote. They believe that if people are in a war, then simply broadcasting the results of the war should be not only allowed, but encouraged.
Why does our media not feel the same?
Why can we let our government kill others in our name, and yet seeing the murders is "propaganda" and "anti-American?"
Americans are so fucking detached, but pictures make a difference. 9/11 proved that. In perspective, 3000 people, while serious grief is felt for those who fell, is not that many people on the grand scale of things. Many more people die of many more causes for many more preventable reasons.
But the point is, the pictures inflated the trauma. If the movies of the plane crashes, the jumping people, the screaming, crying families...if the pictures were not available the sense of grief would have seriously diminished.
And now this quagmire in Iraq. We have killed 15,000 innocent civilians...yet...let me pose to you a question...
When is the last time you saw a movie of an Ir
Re:We need to fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue... This is all bullshit.
Yeah, dare not let images of the good things you've done get in the way of a self-demonizing temper tantrum. After all, the United States is supposed to take both sides of every issue, make the every foreign person in the world happy in the process, and never think of itself. Forgetting to do so might make put us on the standard we use for everybody else.
We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.
But is it a correct one? Or did you personally know every innocent person? Isn't there a certain level of ambiguity when judging innocence? That is after all how the argument against the imprisonment of people in Gitmo goes, right?
But, for the sake of the discussion, if it is right, how does that "fact" compare to the number of people Saddam killed and/or would kill on a regular basis under his regime?
So how can any of this be justified?
Easy. September 11th showed us that we can no longer ignore the problem in the Middle East. A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city. As a short-term means, we attacked Afghanistan, disorienting the enemy long enough to achieve our long-term objective: fighting extremism at its source--poverty and disenfranchisement. The means of doing so would be establishing a free and democratic Islamic state right smack in the center of the Middle East. The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values. Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board. Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.
Was it the right decision? History will tell, but it wasn't unjustified or for naught.
This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??
This is bullshit. I can't believe this got modded to +5. Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton. The whole tea tax thing was a political ploy used to rally support for the cause. All across the world, successful, stable democracies have been established with less-than-picturesque beginnings--why should (will?) Iraq be any different?
Empire? Half our country wants to cut and run as it is! And even if we could stay there permanently (disregarding internal pressures not to), why would we want to stay? The whole plan revolves around us handing power to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the middle east.
Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Why does our media not feel the same?
Oh you mean that Arabic television station that refers to suicide bombers in Isreal as martyrs? The same one that airs videotapes of infidels pleading for their lives as they get their hea
Re:We need to fight back (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.marxist.org.uk/htm_docs/comm12.htm [marxist.org.uk]
It does a pretty good job both pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left as well as giving some very strong reasons why Iraq was a good idea.
Personally, I have no trouble with someone disagreeing with me on wh
Groundhog Day v. State of the Union Speech (Score:5, Funny)
One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication; the other involves a groundhog.
Social Security Reform For Dummies (Score:3, Informative)
Phase one: default on the General Fund's debt to the Social Security Trust Fund in order to make room in the budget (sort of) to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Phase two: Once that's done, Social Security doesn't have nearly enough revenue to cover currently promised benefits. The White House wants to resolve this through some unspecified level of benefit cuts. The idea is that promised benefits will now be brought into line with the (reduced) quantity of funds available. From here on out, Social Security's accounts will be balanced in a cash flow sense. The amount of money paid out each year will be equal to the amount of FICA collected.
Phase three: we divert one third of our payroll taxes into something resembling an account under the Thrift Savings Plan. Once we choose to do this, Social Security's cash flow will be messed up. Four percentage points of our wage income that were supposed to be going to pay grandma's Social Security benefits are now sitting in our private account. As a result, the government will need to borrow some money to pay grandma's benefits. The administration believes that that money can be borrowed at a 3 percent rate of interest. When we retire, our guaranteed benefits -- already substantially cut during phase two -- will be cut a second time. The size of this cut will be equivalent to the value of our total contribution to our private account, plus 3 percent interest per year. Thus, once we retire, we will have access to all of the money in our private account, but our guaranteed benefits will have been cut twice. Our little brother, meanwhile, who didn't put money into his private account, will only have his benefits cut once.
If that's too complex, try this:
Instead of saying that 4 percentage points of my FICA were diverted into a private account and then the government borrows an equivalent amount of money in order to pay grandma's benefits, say that...
1) All of my FICA goes to pay for grandma
2) The government lends me an amount of money equal to 4 percentage points of my FICA.
3) When I retire, I get the money in my private account, but I need to repay all those loans with an interest rate of 3 percent.
4) In addition to my private account (with the loan repaid) I then get to collect (reduced) guaranteed benefits.
My apologies to Matt Yglesias [typepad.com], from whom this analysis was stolen with minor reforming.
Silly (Score:2)
Re:Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:2)
Re:Silly (Score:3, Funny)
And Cheney is obviously some kind of cyborg.
Re:Wrong Category (Score:2, Insightful)
Black comedy perhaps
"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and th
Re:FMA (Score:2)
Too many big egos. Not one of us is better than the other. Who is to say you're right, and he is wrong, or the other way around?
Who plays judge?
Re:FMA (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm not saying you are wrong, just your argument isn't worth crap and I'm wondering how it got modded insightful. Someone must have confused it with inciteful.
Re:FMA (Score:2)
Re:FMA (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic argument against GWB is that the federal government doesn't have any business regulating lifestyle. It seems GWB is okay to tolerate some diversity, but he draws a firm and arbitrary line that is not appropriate for the government. The Constitution has the first amendment they way it does for a reason, and that's why this "marriage amendment" proposal exists. However the whole thing is so absurd that I would be blown away if it was ever ratified. The fact that states are taking on amendments worries me less, as states often take opposing viewpoints and don't all fall into the same line.
Re:FMA (Score:4, Insightful)
Marriage is a sacred religious institution.
Then why do atheists get married? And why does the government get to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in this "sacred religious institution" when they are legally required to stay away from religion?
Re:FMA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the religious right, but I think governments should keep their nose out of marriage completely.
Re:FMA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FMA (Score:2)
I mean, hasn't Brittney Spears gotten married three times, just this year?
Government should stay out of peoples love-lives! (Score:2, Interesting)
before the 30's (i think the marriage act was passed during the depression
but now, marriages have an impact on the governments tax revenues. this is the only -real- reason behind why the gov't is p
Interesting beliefs (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad they're completely wrong! ;)
For sake of argument, I'll accept your correlation, but I find it very hard to accept your causation. I think divorce rose merely because (a) women became more financially independent and (b) it became more acceptable.
Secondly, your government paranoia dismisses the fact that the majority of Americans support laws forbidding homosexuals the ability to marry one another. These people (and I'm not one of them) don't support these laws because they'll give the government
You actually expect consistency? (Score:2)
Perhaps for a few people (Score:2)
But I'd have a hard time believing that most people think that hard about the government's role in marriage. I understand your premise, I just don't believe your conclusion. By the same logic, would it make sense to claim that people don't take murder so seriously, because the government does? After all, there has been an increase in murders (at least in the absolute sense) ever since the government first got involved in them (whenever that was).
Re:FMA (Score:2)
Re:FMA (Score:2)
Many people think as you do. Many more do not. Why do you think your viewpoint is more valid than theirs? It is an emotional decision, not a rational one. Rationally, noone should get married.
Why Government needs Families (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:3, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:3, Informative)
When people retire, if they have no money, what do they do? Do we say go live in the gutter, as you propose? Our gutters would fill up quick. I'm normally pretty uncaring about people who make rotten decisions in life, but I realize that one way or another, our tax dollars are going to be spent taking care of these people. I'd just as soon have EVERYONE get taxed, then have it returned with nice earned interest when I'm older. I'm already doing this with my personal retirement, why no
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2)
You do remember that Social Security was created as a result of the Great Depression [1929stockmarketcrash.com], right? Millions of people who put money away for retirement were among the jobless [sfsu.edu] standing in breadlines [about.com]. Now, if there is any one thing that can cause the downfall of capitalism, that one thing would be to have starving
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:4, Insightful)
This administration sure believes that.
I suppose we all hear what we want to hear but if you evaluate what he SAID and not what the news folks said, he said any idea was on the table. The main thrust of that portion of his speech was that it was going down the tubes and SOMETHING must be done. I like the fact that instead of saying "It's broke, it's the democrats fault" he said (paraphrased of course), "It's broke, and we need to figure out how to fix it. I have an idea but I'll listen to anyone".
What's the matter with that? Would it be better if he said "It's broken and I have no ideas..."
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2, Insightful)
Case in point: Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense in his second term was Bill Cohen. He's a Republican. In his first term, he was occused of not having enough "grown-ups" in his decision making team. He sou
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:3, Insightful)
We were not in a time of war during his "handout", which by the way I was against. Plus, his point is that the government shouldn't have to bail out a program like SS, since it should be set
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2)
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2)
But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.
I don't see how you can have an option to take mon
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2)
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:2)
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:3, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.
I don't see how you can have an option to tak
Re:Typical assinine name-calling (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd submit that it hasn't been a flawed system since the 1980s when we repaired it the last time. What is flawed is the neoliberal and neoconservative attempt to steal money out of the system by calling it a loan and then never paying back that loan.
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Security actuaries project the trust fund will last until 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052.
You're apparently confusing "liar" with "person telling me the truth but I don't want to think about it because it's a really long ways off". The fact that everyone predicts SS will, in fact, backs up his statement. The question is, and always has been, when.
"conservative" and "stock funds" do not go together
Do you have a retirement account? In most di
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, saying that the Social Security fund will go bankrupt is indeed a lie, because no matter what date you choose to believe, that is the date when the Social Secuirty fund will continue to pay out, but at only 70% of current benefits. Due to the interest on the fund and the pay in, Social Security will never go "bankrupt." For Bush and other Republicans to use that word is completely misleading.
Furthermore, according to the White House's own economic projections (which they insist are correct because they show that making the tax cuts permament will help the economy), the Social Security fund will never experience a shortfall. So, which is it? If you believe permament tax cuts are going to help the economy, then you have to believe that Social Security is in no trouble at all. Or, if you believe Social Security is in trouble, then you have to believe that the tax cuts should not be made permament. The fact that the White House uses whatever projections are "convenient" for making their points smacks of pure politics.
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:3, Insightful)
ALL investments follow a simple rule. More risk = more reward. Social Security isn't even an investment, it's a wealth redistribution system designed such that individuals who pay into the system fund those who are no longer able to.
If we redesign the system to involve trust funds, we make is less secure. That lack of security derails the entire point of the
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:2)
I don't know how old you are but I am 33. According to your own numbers, Social Security will be out of funds sometime in my 70's. A signficiant portion of slashdotters are youger than me... for them this will likely occur in their 60's. I personally plan on living beyond my 70's and have been paying into SS for 15 years now - this is a huge problem and it is a huge
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:2)
The problem
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:2, Insightful)
Also think of the impact on the stock market. The goverment would be capable of swing stocks instantly higher o
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire (Score:2)
I'll tel
That was my SOTU opinion. (Score:2)
That comment was my state of the union speech which shows that Bush's views are unacceptably far from reality.
Why is that needed? (Score:2)
No manna needed. All you need to do to cut the defecit in half is to cut waste spending. Hiking taxes would clobber the economy and cause worse defecit problems. However, as many said, Bush "spends like a drunken sailor", so he has (to say the least) not been a help to the defecit problem. (Kerry would have been even worse, as his budget called for even more spending).
Re:Vision (Score:5, Insightful)