Let's see Jeffords, Reed, Dayton, Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Kerry, Levin, Harkin, Lautenberg, Bayh, Akaka and Durbin voted against Rice. The only one that surprises me is Bayh. All the rest are extremists and such a vote should be expected from them. Bayh must be running for president.
It is all about choice. If you wish to have a "Guaranteed Benefit" (which we do not have now), then do it. If you are young and wish to build a 401k style of account with options for money market funds, stocks or bonds, then do that. From what I have seen, nothing ends, just more choices of what you can do.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Jan 27, 2005 at 05:18pm.]
"Christie Whitman emerged from her first meeting with President-elect George Bush in 2000 full of optimism and convinced of his determination to build a positive environmental "legacy" - a belief reinforced moments later when Karl Rove took her aside and confided, flatteringly, that as the boss of the Environmental Protection Agency, she would be one of just three cabinet-level officers who would help determine whether the president would be re-elected in 2004. This she took to mean that "the work I would do in building a strong record on the environment would help the president build on his base by attracting moderate voters."
'"As it turned out," she now concedes in her just-published political memoir, "It's My Party Too," "I don't seem to have understood Karl correctly." '
One of the more moderate and sensible candidates for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee has quit the race. Former Texas Congressman Martin Frost, a red state moderate Democrat, is no longer a candidate. Howard Dean is now the inevitable choice to run the Democratic party.
Think about that for a minute. The Democrats lost nearly every single national race that they ran. Howard Dean was defeated in the primaries because he was viewed as too extreme. The liberals considered their safe choice to be The Poodle, who was also soundly defeated. So now they're turning to former Vermont Governor and Doctor Howard Dean to lead them out of the darkness? This should be good.
This is the same Howard Dean that said the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make America safer. This is the same Howard Dean that said he found it "interesting" that President Bush might have known about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. And this is the same Howard Dean that just the other day said he hated Republicans. That's right, he used the word "hate." Imagine if a Republican had said he hated Democrats? We'd still be hearing about it.
Those of you on the left....take a good, long look at the face of your party: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. It's not a pretty sight. - Neal Boortz
I read an interview with Christy Whitman. In a cabinet meeting, Colin Powell referred to her as a floppy device that's thrown from a plane to check wind direction, presumably on possible environmental issues.
To Powell, she was the Administration's Wind Dummy.
Too funny. Not that long ago she was considered a "psycho republican fascist Nazi war cunt" link. Now she is considered a poster child of the left because she badmouths the president. Of course it has nothing to do with Bush bashing though.
Clinton wanted private accounts in 1999 and the Dems loved him for it. Problem was, he wanted the government to do all the investing. And apparently even FDR suggested that it should eventually evolve into private accounts.
I thought back then that it was the same thing except that Clinton wanted the government to choose where everyone's "private" account would be invested. It didn't fly because nobody wanted government to be manipulating the stock exchanges. But he did suggest private accounts.
Bush's numbers, including on Social Security, were pretty good before the State of the Union speech. He got a bump afterwards. The people polled look skewed toward Repubs.
I never said you did. In fact I looked back and you have said that she was one of the more moderate voices of this administration. I was just pointing out that some have said those things about her and now she is some kind of hero to them.
Then it's not the same thing, and I think your being deliberately misleading.
Actually, it is very similar. He spent 18 months looking into private accounts. In the plan that theywere working on, people would not have a choice of investments until the account value reached a minimum size, account statements would be mailed once a year and telephone inquiries would not be toll-free. Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60329-2001Jun28?language=printer
"I was just pointing out that some have said those things about her and now she is some kind of hero to them."
I think highly of her, too. She's from New Jersey. She probably knows about environmental issues. And, it appears, she was not useful (or useful in a certain way) to the Bush Administration for that reason. But they wanted her at the head of the EPA, for reasons that the inner circle only knows
"How is it different?"
For one thing, it wasn't followed through. Evidently the idea was abandoned from this FOUR YEAR OLD story you pulled out.
Rushie tell you about it? That's where I heard it. And it just happned to be , well, today. Where did you learn of it?
And it's still not the same thing.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Feb 4, 2005 at 08:16pm.]
I don't think it exists in detail. That's why he said that all ideas are on the table and he welcomes input from others. But yes, he is looking to end the programas it exists now. Sorta like "ending welfare as we know it."
he is looking to end the program as it exists now.
Which by anyone's measure is the smost successful thing the Federal Government has ever done. But to GW Bush SS is just SO twentieth-century.
Bush makes a big point of the "fact" that outgo from the Social Security trust fund will exceed income in 2018. The SS actuaries this week pushed that date back to 2020, but that's a minor quibble. What he is not telling you is that if any significant percentage of people opt into the private-accounts plan, SSTF outgo will exceed income almost immediately.
If it would have been a Kerry plan, pieter would have been the head cheerleader.
A classic example of the old lawyer's advice to the young man who had just passed the Bar:
If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If both the law and the facts are against you, call your opponent names.
"...the privatized system actually contains hidden costs that could leave retirees with less. Your Social Security benefit would be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of money you deposit into your private account and an additional charge amounting to 3 percent plus the rate of inflation. All the money that is drained off would presumably go to pay for the enormous upfront government borrowing - $4.5 trillion over the next 20 years - that privatization would require.
"That means people whose private accounts steadily earned three percentage points over inflation throughout their working lives would wind up with exactly what they would have gotten if Social Security remained untouched. Anyone who earned less than that would end up with less than is offered by the current system. When asked what would happen to the people who would not have enough income to avoid poverty, the administration official said, "I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question." '
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 6, 2005 at 10:05am.]
Here's why I brought it up. Pro choice advocates say that people should have the right to do with their body and the "fetus" as they see fit. So hands off my body even if it involves somoene else, but by all means force me to pay into S.S Yea, it's a hoot.
Let's see, it goes from aborting a fetus to killing an infant to killing a child to killing a kid... what's next? Abortion kills teenagers? Abortion wastes an adult life?
So hands off my body even if it involves somoene else, but by all means force me to pay into S.S Yea, it's a hoot.
The Rat - ( PFID:1e2ab84c) - 09:11am Nov 21, 2004 PST (# 7518 of 8305) "Out in the distance/always within reach/there's a crossroad/where all the victims meet."
A remedy for Democrats: Go States Rights on all their asses.
Jim Holt in the New York Times magazine points out some interesting facts in the Red State/Blue State divide.
"Marriage affords a vivid example. In some states it is evidently more imperiled than others. The Bible Belt states, in particular have a shockingly high divorce rate, around 50 percent above the national average. Given such marital instability, these states are anxious to defend the intitution of heterosexual matrimony, which may explain their hostility to gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts, by contrast, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. So its people -- or at least its liberal judges -- perhaps feel more comfortable allowing some progressive experimentation."
Another issue: Crime and punishment: The 12 states that do not have capital punishment have a decidedly lower murder rate than the states that embrace it. Coincidence?
"One of the most striking differences among states is on the levels of wealth. Liberals tend to live in more economically productive states than conservatives. The top five states in per capita personal income (Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York) all went to Kerry; the bottom five (Utah, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi) all went to Bush. Since the blue states are generally richer than the red states, they must bear the greater portion of the federal tax burden. Most of them pay more to Washington then they receive, wheras most of the red states receive more than they pay.Some liberals in blues states must wonder exactly what the get in return for subsidizing the heartlanders, who are said to resent them."
Finally:
"The more conservatives succeed in reducing the size of the federal government, the more fiscal freedom the blue states will have to pursue their own idea of a just society. Senators like Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Charles E. Schumer of New York are rumored to be contemplating guberntorial runs in their respective states, convinced now that there is now more to do in the governor's mansion than on Capitol Hill."
I was encouraged in the last election, more than I thought I would be. I didn't do as much work for the DFL as 2002, but there was some real energy for the General Election. I think the urban core and the Range can still muster the numbers.
I think Minnesota drifted far to the right, but it's possible to turn the boat here.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 10, 2005 at 06:01am.]
Maybe it's because we tried 40 years of the other way. Maybe it's because the once great democratic party has drifted so far to the left that many can no longer call the democratic party their home and their only other viable choice was another party. Maybe when you have a guy who compares the pieces of shit cutting off aid workers heads and killing our men and women to the minutemen, sitting in a presidential box at a convention. And sitting senators claiming Osama has built more schools than we have you've gone through the looking glass. Or those who implied we somehow had 9-11 coming. Maybe, just maybe most Americans still find that type of rhetoric distasteful, call it a wild hunch. Maybe, just maybe although far from perfect they don't see America as a force of evil throughout the world. And just maybe if they actually came up with some new ideas and went back to their roots and being a Truman type democrat people would listen again. Think we'd see Michael Moore sitting in Truman's presidential box? Not a chance. It's not your fathers oldsmobile nor is it your fathers Democratic party. I'm not saying this because I think it would hurt the democratic party. I'm saying it because I think 2 strong parties are healthy. But it looks like Howard Dean will be running the DNC so the lurch leftward will probably continue and so will their march over the cliff until it's possibly too late.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 10, 2005 at 12:36pm.]
It was the right thing to do, but that's when the Democrats started losing the South.
Yea, that's it. Of course they held the majority of power until 4 years ago. Considering that Bush had a fellow republican congress for the first time since Eisenhower your theory is full of water. It's not just the south they lost.
Whattya, want us to go back to Truman? Great days for women, minorities and gays.
You pray to your god with that mouth?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/25/rice.confirmation/index.html
Let's see Jeffords, Reed, Dayton, Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Kerry, Levin, Harkin, Lautenberg, Bayh, Akaka and Durbin voted against Rice. The only one that surprises me is Bayh. All the rest are extremists and such a vote should be expected from them. Bayh must be running for president.
Which Would End the Guaranteed Benefit to Seniors.
It is all about choice. If you wish to have a "Guaranteed Benefit" (which we do not have now), then do it. If you are young and wish to build a 401k style of account with options for money market funds, stocks or bonds, then do that. From what I have seen, nothing ends, just more choices of what you can do.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Jan 27, 2005 at 05:18pm.]
Correct, Dan. Nobody will be forced to do anything. Even people just coming into the system will be allowed to choose the current way of doing things.
Even if they pass changes this year, I'm probably too close to retirement to be allowed to opt into the changes. I would if I could.
A loyal Republican who has had enough
"Christie Whitman emerged from her first meeting with President-elect George Bush in 2000 full of optimism and convinced of his determination to build a positive environmental "legacy" - a belief reinforced moments later when Karl Rove took her aside and confided, flatteringly, that as the boss of the Environmental Protection Agency, she would be one of just three cabinet-level officers who would help determine whether the president would be re-elected in 2004. This she took to mean that "the work I would do in building a strong record on the environment would help the president build on his base by attracting moderate voters."
'"As it turned out," she now concedes in her just-published political memoir, "It's My Party Too," "I don't seem to have understood Karl correctly." '
Christie Todd Whitman-irrelevant.
Jethro, anyone who says anything at all about this Prez, and the HINT that they may not agree with him, is no less than a terrorist,
to you
.
Given the way the Administration apparently treated her, she's probably more relevant now than she was when she was head of EPA.
The Rat, anyone who says anything at all good about this Prez, and the HINT that they may agree with him, is no less than a terrorist, to you.
See generalizations can go both ways.
One of the more moderate and sensible candidates for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee has quit the race. Former Texas Congressman Martin Frost, a red state moderate Democrat, is no longer a candidate. Howard Dean is now the inevitable choice to run the Democratic party.
Think about that for a minute. The Democrats lost nearly every single national race that they ran. Howard Dean was defeated in the primaries because he was viewed as too extreme. The liberals considered their safe choice to be The Poodle, who was also soundly defeated. So now they're turning to former Vermont Governor and Doctor Howard Dean to lead them out of the darkness? This should be good.
This is the same Howard Dean that said the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make America safer. This is the same Howard Dean that said he found it "interesting" that President Bush might have known about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. And this is the same Howard Dean that just the other day said he hated Republicans. That's right, he used the word "hate." Imagine if a Republican had said he hated Democrats? We'd still be hearing about it.
Those of you on the left....take a good, long look at the face of your party: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. It's not a pretty sight. - Neal Boortz
Please oh please make Dean the chairman.
"See generalizations can go both ways."
What are you talking about?
Re-read the previous exchanges, Wolvie. I think you mixed me up with Bill.
I read an interview with Christy Whitman. In a cabinet meeting, Colin Powell referred to her as a floppy device that's thrown from a plane to check wind direction, presumably on possible environmental issues.
To Powell, she was the Administration's Wind Dummy.
Too funny. Not that long ago she was considered a "psycho republican fascist Nazi war cunt" link. Now she is considered a poster child of the left because she badmouths the president. Of course it has nothing to do with Bush bashing though.
"Not that long ago she was considered a "psycho republican fascist Nazi war cunt""
I said that over and over, I know, Dan. I like talking about women like that.
Mea culpa
Looks like you went straight to the credible sources for that insight. I would have expected nothing else from you.
<rolls eyes>
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Feb 3, 2005 at 05:29am.]
Clinton wanted private accounts in 1999 and the Dems loved him for it. Problem was, he wanted the government to do all the investing. And apparently even FDR suggested that it should eventually evolve into private accounts.
[Edited by on Feb 4, 2005 at 11:18am.]
Then it's not the same thing, and I think your being deliberately misleading. Like Limbaugh is trying to pull today.
I thought back then that it was the same thing except that Clinton wanted the government to choose where everyone's "private" account would be invested. It didn't fly because nobody wanted government to be manipulating the stock exchanges. But he did suggest private accounts.
What's Rush doing today?
He's trying to sell the same line you are.
Bush's numbers, including on Social Security, were pretty good before the State of the Union speech. He got a bump afterwards. The people polled look skewed toward Repubs.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.poll/index.html
Â
I said that over and over, I know, Dan.
I never said you did. In fact I looked back and you have said that she was one of the more moderate voices of this administration. I was just pointing out that some have said those things about her and now she is some kind of hero to them.
Then it's not the same thing, and I think your being deliberately misleading.
Actually, it is very similar. He spent 18 months looking into private accounts. In the plan that theywere working on, people would not have a choice of investments until the account value reached a minimum size, account statements would be mailed once a year and telephone inquiries would not be toll-free. Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60329-2001Jun28?language=printer
How is it different?
"I was just pointing out that some have said those things about her and now she is some kind of hero to them."
I think highly of her, too. She's from New Jersey. She probably knows about environmental issues. And, it appears, she was not useful (or useful in a certain way) to the Bush Administration for that reason. But they wanted her at the head of the EPA, for reasons that the inner circle only knows
"How is it different?"
For one thing, it wasn't followed through. Evidently the idea was abandoned from this FOUR YEAR OLD story you pulled out.
Rushie tell you about it? That's where I heard it. And it just happned to be , well, today. Where did you learn of it?
And it's still not the same thing.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Feb 4, 2005 at 08:16pm.]
I don't think it exists in detail. That's why he said that all ideas are on the table and he welcomes input from others. But yes, he is looking to end the programas it exists now. Sorta like "ending welfare as we know it."
Which by anyone's measure is the smost successful thing the Federal Government has ever done. But to GW Bush SS is just SO twentieth-century.
Bush makes a big point of the "fact" that outgo from the Social Security trust fund will exceed income in 2018. The SS actuaries this week pushed that date back to 2020, but that's a minor quibble. What he is not telling you is that if any significant percentage of people opt into the private-accounts plan, SSTF outgo will exceed income almost immediately.
[Edited by on Feb 5, 2005 at 01:53pm.]
If it would have been a Kerry plan, pieter would have been the head cheerleader.
A classic example of the old lawyer's advice to the young man who had just passed the Bar:
[Edited by on Feb 6, 2005 at 09:41am.]
When someone touts simplistic solutions to complicated issues, there's always fine print.
"...the privatized system actually contains hidden costs that could leave retirees with less. Your Social Security benefit would be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of money you deposit into your private account and an additional charge amounting to 3 percent plus the rate of inflation. All the money that is drained off would presumably go to pay for the enormous upfront government borrowing - $4.5 trillion over the next 20 years - that privatization would require.
"That means people whose private accounts steadily earned three percentage points over inflation throughout their working lives would wind up with exactly what they would have gotten if Social Security remained untouched. Anyone who earned less than that would end up with less than is offered by the current system. When asked what would happen to the people who would not have enough income to avoid poverty, the administration official said, "I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question." '
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 6, 2005 at 10:05am.]
Or the ones pieter uses on a regular basis...deny the truth...deny the facts.
I'd like to ask people that consider themselves pro choice can be against choosing how to take care of yourself in retirement.
I'm not against it.
It's peculiar that you would bring abortion into the debate.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 8, 2005 at 08:09pm.]
are a lot of 68 year old women getting abortions?
Yea, killing kids is a hoot.
Here's why I brought it up. Pro choice advocates say that people should have the right to do with their body and the "fetus" as they see fit. So hands off my body even if it involves somoene else, but by all means force me to pay into S.S Yea, it's a hoot.
Let's see, it goes from aborting a fetus to killing an infant to killing a child to killing a kid... what's next? Abortion kills teenagers? Abortion wastes an adult life?
and SS is your body how exactly?
Pro choice, yea sure.
Dayton bows out of re-election bid
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said today that he will not run for re-election in 2006.
Dayton made the announcement this afternoon in a telephone conference call with reporters.
"I do not believe that I am the best candidate to lead the DFL Party to victory next year,'' Dayton said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5231507.htmlÂ
Awww, and it would have been so much fun.
So Rick, who is going to fill his spot for the election? Ciresi? Hatch? (or is he angling for governor?)
Â
I think called this move by Dayton! He might want to come back and run for governor.
I think Bush wants Vin Weber to run for Senate. We may see a bit more of Al Franken in the year to come.
Franken? Oh boy.
Actually that would be fun.
Looka this:
The Rat - ( PFID:1e2ab84c) - 09:11am Nov 21, 2004 PST (# 7518 of 8305)
"Out in the distance/always within reach/there's a crossroad/where all the victims meet."
A remedy for Democrats: Go States Rights on all their asses.
Jim Holt in the New York Times magazine points out some interesting facts in the Red State/Blue State divide.
"Marriage affords a vivid example. In some states it is evidently more imperiled than others. The Bible Belt states, in particular have a shockingly high divorce rate, around 50 percent above the national average. Given such marital instability, these states are anxious to defend the intitution of heterosexual matrimony, which may explain their hostility to gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts, by contrast, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. So its people -- or at least its liberal judges -- perhaps feel more comfortable allowing some progressive experimentation."
Another issue: Crime and punishment: The 12 states that do not have capital punishment have a decidedly lower murder rate than the states that embrace it. Coincidence?
"One of the most striking differences among states is on the levels of wealth. Liberals tend to live in more economically productive states than conservatives. The top five states in per capita personal income (Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York) all went to Kerry; the bottom five (Utah, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi) all went to Bush. Since the blue states are generally richer than the red states, they must bear the greater portion of the federal tax burden. Most of them pay more to Washington then they receive, wheras most of the red states receive more than they pay.Some liberals in blues states must wonder exactly what the get in return for subsidizing the heartlanders, who are said to resent them."
Finally:
"The more conservatives succeed in reducing the size of the federal government, the more fiscal freedom the blue states will have to pursue their own idea of a just society. Senators like Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Charles E. Schumer of New York are rumored to be contemplating guberntorial runs in their respective states, convinced now that there is now more to do in the governor's mansion than on Capitol Hill."
Memo to Mark Dayton: You're needed in St. Paul.
Memo to Mark Dayton: You're needed in St. Paul.
That should be Randy Kelly's new job.
He disagreed with your choice for president and now you wish for him to be punished by filling potholes? How sad.
He doesn't have to fill all of them in. And he can take a break once in awhile.
Rob wished the same fate for Mark Dayton. But it's just The Rat you're concerned with.
I see.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Feb 9, 2005 at 03:36pm.]
I hope Franken gets the nod...=Loser!
The DNC twisted Dayton's arm to get out. He was viewed as easily beatable. He only had about 170K in the war chest.
I was encouraged in the last election, more than I thought I would be. I didn't do as much work for the DFL as 2002, but there was some real energy for the General Election. I think the urban core and the Range can still muster the numbers.
I think Minnesota drifted far to the right, but it's possible to turn the boat here.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 10, 2005 at 06:01am.]
I didn't mention the rest of the country on purpose. Because I don't know what to do there.
I think there's hope for Minnesota.
Give these two a tissue.
Rick, the whole damn country has lurched TOO FARÂ to the Right.
Not too far. Not far enough. We still have abortion on demand.
Maybe it's because we tried 40 years of the other way. Maybe it's because the once great democratic party has drifted so far to the left that many can no longer call the democratic party their home and their only other viable choice was another party. Maybe when you have a guy who compares the pieces of shit cutting off aid workers heads and killing our men and women to the minutemen, sitting in a presidential box at a convention. And sitting senators claiming Osama has built more schools than we have you've gone through the looking glass. Or those who implied we somehow had 9-11 coming. Maybe, just maybe most Americans still find that type of rhetoric distasteful, call it a wild hunch. Maybe, just maybe although far from perfect they don't see America as a force of evil throughout the world. And just maybe if they actually came up with some new ideas and went back to their roots and being a Truman type democrat people would listen again. Think we'd see Michael Moore sitting in Truman's presidential box? Not a chance. It's not your fathers oldsmobile nor is it your fathers Democratic party. I'm not saying this because I think it would hurt the democratic party. I'm saying it because I think 2 strong parties are healthy. But it looks like Howard Dean will be running the DNC so the lurch leftward will probably continue and so will their march over the cliff until it's possibly too late.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 10, 2005 at 12:36pm.]
As easy as it is to blame Michael Moore, the shift goes back to when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Movement into law.
It was the right thing to do, but that's when the Democrats started losing the South.
Whattya, want us to go back to Truman? Great days for women, minorities and gays.
It was the right thing to do, but that's when the Democrats started losing the South.
Yea, that's it. Of course they held the majority of power until 4 years ago. Considering that Bush had a fellow republican congress for the first time since Eisenhower your theory is full of water. It's not just the south they lost.
Whattya, want us to go back to Truman? Great days for women, minorities and gays.