Over-arching observation: the President-elect sounds like he wrote the book at the DLC. Coupled with the rather stark moderation - comparatively speaking - of his announced appointments, it raises legitimate questions as to just what we'll see out of an Obama administration.
Will that tone hold in the creation of policy, especially when influenced by a decidedly more liberal Congressional leadership? If so, it could be notably less problematic than an Obama administration first appeared, particularly based on his rhetoric during the primary season.
Of course, get back to me after a Supreme Court appointment or two, dramatic changes in our healthcare system, and a serious effort to reform Social Security.
Exit question: just as only Nixon could go to China and given our modern politics, can only a Democratic President lead a real effort to enact substantive, long-term Social Security reform?
Posted by Eric Earling at December 07, 2008 10:34 AM | Email ThisObama...(A friendly reminder) Interestate state construction started 25 years after 1929...
Summary: Obama = Much Higher Taxes!!!
Of course, they wouldn't BE fringe leftist nutbags if they COULD think, so there's an element of "oxymoronishness" in the question.
My bad.
Posted by: Hinton on December 7, 2008 11:47 AMSummary will be defeated by Mummery and Flummery. The said verbiage will be deployed as smokescreen for vastly increased deficit spending.
Some of us can recall the hope that conservatives had, following the Bush tax cuts, that less income to Federal coffers could be used as a paring knife to shrink the whole government.
Comes now the same idea in reverse: that more outflow from Federal coffers can not only buy votes, but will so commit the efforts of our progeny for so far in advance that there will be scarcely any hope of ever shrinking the government, or even maintaining a competent military organization. Thereby permanently installing paternal socialism in place of private enterprise - which will be regulated, unionized and mandated to follow the dictates of the more-enlightened-than-thou Community Organizers in your neighborhood.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 7, 2008 11:55 AMI just Googled Bush on Meet the Press. Could you imagine Bush taking questions from Brokaw, Gregory, or Russert, and allowing follow ups? Yeah right.
Change?
You saw some of it today. Imagine. A president that can answer a question without drooling, and babbling for a change.
Hinton, I am a moron? What, for voting for a president with an IQ in double digits?
Glenno, I suppose you would rather borrow money from China than have the elite pay more in taxes they would NEVER EVEN MISS? Or perhaps you want to cut military spending? How about cutting the trillion we subsidize oil companies with, or another trillion we subsidize coal companies with?
Eric. Fixing social security is simple. Raise the cap to infinity. You could raise the cap, and lower the rate on everyone, and still fund it for infinity. Easy. Have Bill Gates pay the same rate as you, and I pay. Tax capitol gains for social security, and lower the rate on the "working" even more. Medicare will be much harder with all those folks taking their lobbyist negotiated "cut" at every step.
So Eric. Don't you like the idea of Obama appointing smart pragmatists instead of yes men with no grasp on reality, like the free, not fair trade outsourcing loving, deregulation loving, job / industry destroying, America destroying crooks?
I love it when Greenspan admitted he was wrong.... At least he manned up!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 12:34 PMHOWEVER: I'm with Eric on this one:
The big question is whether or not the current tone will carry over from transitioning to creation of policy and governing, especially given the make-up of the next Congress. We'll have to see where we are in six months or so:
As we have seen so many times before, rhetoric and record can be two VERY different things.
One of the key indications in this area will be what a President Obama will do if the new leftish-dominated Congress passes legislation that sounds like it was written by moveon.org or Daily Kos:
Will he ever dare exercise a veto ??... Time will tell.
Meanwhile, I'm big-time relieved that the (D)s did NOT get to 60 votes in the U.S. Senate..... sure, there will be issues where the (D)s will get Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and maybe 1 or 2 more moderate (R)s to vote with them. But not on the truly over-the-top Daily Kos stuff, me thinks (at least I sure hope).
Meanwhile #2: The moveon.org crowd may not yet have fully appreciated that several (D) gains in the U.S. Senate were by moderate (D)s (Ben Nelson's website prominently touts how he is an ''independt centrist'' in his online bio). People like Ben Nelson and John Testor represent constituents that are still considerably more red than blue; especially on issues like the 2nd Amendment.
SUMMARY: Stay tuned; jury is still out, and will stay out for at least several months yet.
Posted by: Methow Ken on December 7, 2008 12:44 PMNo. Probably not. There have been D's in the past that could, but they aren't around anymore. They'll just keep ripping of Peter to pay Paul so they can get Paul's vote.
One of the few legitimately committed to what D's were suppose to want with Social Security, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, explained why D's will never have any meaningful reform of social security, "They are afraid poor Democrats will become rich Republicans."
Posted by: cliff on December 7, 2008 12:55 PMYesterday, December 6 in 1865, the 13th Amendment -- abolishing slavery -- became part of the U.S. Constitution -- when ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Despite protests from the Democrats, the Republican Party made banning slavery part of its national platform in 1864. Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the final version of the text, combining the proposed wordings of several other Republican congressmen.
All Republicans in Congress voted for the 13th Amendment, while nearly all Democrats voted against it. So strongly did President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) support the 13th Amendment, he insisted on signing the document, though presidential approval is not part of the amendment process.
Outlawing slavery was a Republican achievement.
Posted by: James D. Kellett on December 7, 2008 01:03 PMWhen will you be (government) accountable for your actions/management as per suggestion that you expected the auto companies to do? (7:40 Min)
PS Obama longest job will be President of United States...he's never had a full time job past 3 years...
Posted by: Glenno on December 7, 2008 01:07 PMYou'd really have to use your imagination since the last time I checked, Russert will not be down for breakfast in the morning. "Facts" is a little behind on current events it would appear.
Oops, I made a mistake above. Hinton voted for a candidate with a double digit IQ. I voted for a candidate with a triple digit IQ.
James, if Lincoln were alive today, he would be a Democrat. Duhhhhh.
If you are talking about me running the automobile companies I would put a 25% plus import tax on all imported cars, and parts, just like the tax they put on importing our cars into their countries. Then I find a way to pay for employee health care so our manufacturers would not be at a disadvantage there. Then I would put every banker on Wall Street that helped commit fraud behind bars, and force the ones left to fund auto loans, or have their assets stripped.
Bush said they got drunk. I say they defrauded investors, and belong in prison, and to return their ill gotten gains with claw backs. Now. They knew what they were selling (swaps) was crap.
Any more problems you want me to solve?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 01:49 PMJust how many times have we heard the dem's say how much smarter they were until the proof came out. So please factless.......... show the whole world.
PS... I'll be using (medic/vet) from here on. Shorter is easer.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 7, 2008 02:03 PMMaybe Tim would have asked:
Why we sent children to manage reconstruction in Iraq.
How his tax breaks turned the largest surplus in history to the largest deficit.
About cherry picked intelligence.
Ignored pre 9-11 warnings.
The attack on science.
The list of all the things Bush should be made to answer to goes on forever. Who knows. Someday he will be made to answer for his crimes, and his lies.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 02:06 PMFirst of all, there will be NO S/S reform. You can bank on that one. With Obama pusing all this FDR stuff and "free" healthcare the US shall have a money burden that won't quit. Not including all these bailouts that apper to be doing zip.
Plus remember Nancy P wants to give away another 500B in &%^$$%^ free cash to us.
God help us all.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 7, 2008 02:11 PMI have 4 words to answer your question.
President Harvard Law Review
I especially liked how earlier today he explained America does best if the poor, and the middle class make progress, and not just the extremely wealthy.
He gets it.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 02:14 PMIgnored pre 9-11 warnings.
Ahhhhhhhh yes factless. The same info the DEM's saw and I guess they were fools too.
Sorry fool, that train left years ago.
Try something new.
LOL
Just like his other college paper work... come on Factless.
This isn't working.
But please keep trying sport.
I can't wait to see a congress change in two short years. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 7, 2008 02:19 PMBush, and his neo-con buddies WANTED us to be attacked. Don't believe me? Name one thing he did to strengthen our security before 9-11, and then watch what he did after the "Pearl Harbor Like Event" spoken of in the PNAC.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 02:24 PMPresident Harvard Law Review
How the hell did he end up as Law Review President, having never written a notable article having to do with law whatsoever? He couldn't have been selected as a figurehead on account of other attributes than legal analysis, could he?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 7, 2008 02:30 PMHow his tax breaks turned the largest surplus in history to the largest deficit.
You're lying again (like that's a surprise). When was the last time we had a surplus? HINT: a REPUBLICAN was in the White House...
And about Social Security reform. If we lift the cap on "contributions", do we also lift the cap on benefits? Or do you just want to fully admit its a welfare plan?
Because if you lift the contribution cap AND lift the benefit plan (like you should if it's just a retirement plan), the whole thing still comes crumbling down...
SS reform's been attempted and each time the SLAVERY PARTY - you and your fellow dolts - lied through your teeth and kicked like stubborn mules to kill any chance to start reform. And it's only getting worse.
So the SS fiasco is YOUR PROBLEM. You and your ilk own it, enjoy it!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 02:45 PMBush, and his neo-con buddies WANTED us to be attacked. Don't believe me? Name one thing he did to strengthen our security before 9-11, and then watch what he did after the "Pearl Harbor Like Event" spoken of in the PNAC.
LIAR and bastard, there... In fact, how about you LOOK at the REAL facts and ask Bill Clinton's Terror Czar about preventing 9/11:
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.
That's right - there was NOTHING to be done to prevent 9/11 - it was FULLY in motion before the Bush Administration started. Too late. If you want to blame 9/11 on an American president, look no further than Bill Clinton. Per his own highly partisan Terror Czar.
But you'll ignore this because it will disturb your little make-believe world of paddy-cake and poppies for all... Fantasy land.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 02:51 PMThe renewal of the civil rights act - it was republicans who voted against it.
How many times did Bush and McCain say the fundamentals of the economy were strong this past year? Turns out they were wrong or lying for most of the year - the depression started last summer.
How many commentators on here claimed the economy was strong? Do you guys admit when you were wrong?
@19: Insufficiently intelligent:
Are you saying that the Harvard Law review is easy to get? Are you as stupid as you sound? Are you claiming some kind of favoritism? Obama was the first African american to get it. They pick qualified people only - do you ANYTHING about it? Are you truly as warped and pathetically ignorant as you sound?
We are in troubled times, and I am proud of Barack's candor, and willingness to not beat around the bush. He is instilling confidence right now, which is what we need more than anything, except finding solutions to the foreclosure, and layoff problems.
I would rather have our tax dollars spent on public works projects than for funding wars against non threatening nations.
Build electric cars, windmills, and transmission lines. Get of the foreign oil asap.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 03:17 PMSS fiasco? SS is easy to solve. Cleaning up the mess caused by Bush, and the GOP will be very, very difficult.
Don't worry.
Yes we can.
I know you, and your traitor friends will do all you can to hold onto policies that got us in this mess, and will try to undermine Obama every step of the way. Returning the party of slime to power means more to you and your right wing traitors than our country's future, and America's standing in the world.
Everyone without a kool aid enema knows who caused this mess, and the GOP better not get in the way when it comes to fixing their mess.
Well, yes. But not the sinister "other attributes" that you're alluding to. He got there through a combination of grades, a writing competition, and the confidence of the editors that his intellectual and legal skills were best of the 19 candidates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html
Posted by: Bruce on December 7, 2008 03:36 PMHe will be your president, and claims that what you want will be taken into account, even if you didn't vote for him.
Why can't you listen to him?
He doesn't mispronunciate enough?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 04:16 PMMy excellent weekend just got even better...
Posted by: Michele on December 7, 2008 04:24 PMDon't waste your time here. Let the loonies spout off all they want. The reason this site has so much traffic is that many people want to see what the wingnuts are up to. This is site is based upon the typical Rove outline for propoganda. Set up one person to be the reasoned moderator, then have a libertarian, a self-proclaimed conservative. All share the same philosophy. All would support "it takes a lot of lipstick [over $200,000 and still counting] not to make me a pig," Palin for president. Has anyone invesigated her AIP connections and what other groups the AIP is connected to? Should President-elect Obama succeed in getting the country out of the messes left by Bush, Rove, and Cheney, little Rickie Dumbass would still call him an empty suit.
The only looney posting here with a chance of a possible election victory helping them is Hinton, should his old boss Pam Roach win the election for King County Elections Director or should she successfully run for Adam Smith's seat if he is called to Washington. That is, if she would hire him. The rest of this crowd chants a mantra which the public is not accepting and doesn't believe.
There should be a conservative moderated site which would filter out a lot of the bigots and looney toon posters. There is a place for geniune debate on a variety of issues between conservative voices and progressive voices. This site is not it. Unless you can't find something on cable, then post here. Best thing to do is watch and not comment. Meanwhile, watch and take notes and keep any of these loonies from infiltrating mainstream political power.
Posted by: Friend of All Facts on December 7, 2008 04:46 PMI guess that means the end of her thoughtful commentary in this forum....
Posted by: Bruce on December 7, 2008 04:47 PMBut we're not really surprised.
ciao
I just Googled Bush on Meet the Press. Could you imagine Bush taking questions from Brokaw, Gregory, or Russert, and allowing follow ups? Yeah right.
Yeah, right. Exactly right. It happened more than once, and he did quite well.
Bush could have done a Meet the Press interview while he was alive.
What a shock that you don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe Tim would have asked:
Why we sent children to manage reconstruction in Iraq.
That never happened.
How his tax breaks turned the largest surplus in history to the largest deficit.
That never happened. (In fact, the first deficit under Bush was GREATER than the "cost" of the tax breaks, proving your assertion wrong. Also, the projected deficit NOW is the greatest in history, and it is from Democrats.)
About cherry picked intelligence.
That never happened.
Ignored pre 9-11 warnings.
That never happened.
The attack on science.
That never happened.
I love it when Greenspan admitted he was wrong.... At least he manned up!
Will you?
Posted by: pudge on December 7, 2008 05:15 PMHe got there through a combination of grades, a writing competition, and the confidence of the editors that his intellectual and legal skills were best of the 19 candidates.
Obviously not his understanding of the Constitution, unfortunately, as he still doesn't understand much of it, most notably the Second and Tenth Amendments.
The renewal of the civil rights act - it was republicans who voted against it.
That never happened. You are thinking of the VOTING Rights Act, and it deserves to be killed, or heavily modified. It's an anachronistic joke.
How many times did Bush and McCain say the fundamentals of the economy were strong this past year?
About as many times as Obama, actually.
Turns out they were wrong or lying for most of the year - the depression started last summer.
Funny how you can accuse them of "lying" and then lie yourself in the next clause of the same sentence.
Are you saying that the Harvard Law review is easy to get?
I can't speak for him, but I can say that Obama is not nearly as smart as you think he is when it comes to the law. Just listen to his completely muddled explanation of his view on the Second Amendment: the DC gun ban is constitutional, he says, but the law saying it is UNconstitutional was a decision he agrees with. Everyone has an "individual right to keep and bear arms," but municipalities have the right to completely ban guns.
No serious legal thinker could say such things ... unless he was a very dishonest person.
They pick qualified people only
False. They pick people THEY think are qualified, which isn't saying much.
Fixing Social Security involves funding the program. The maximum incomes are currently about $102K. That needs to rise over the next ten years to unlimited income.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The way Social Security works is that what you pay into it is YOURS to get back later. So if we raised it to "unlimited income," then we need to pay that money back, which will make the problem MUCH WORSE in the next generation, because we then will need to start paying higher pecentages just to pay back the wealthy Americans who paid so much into it.
What you would do is take what is already a Ponzi scheme and make it even more top-heavy.
You may say, "well, we don't need to pay back those wealthy Americans." Fine, but if that's the case, then we could stop doing it now, and then we won't NEED to raise the cap so much annually. If we stop payments to people like Warren Buffett, it immediately decreases the burden on Social Security.
Social Security is sorta complicated, and you need to learn more about how it works if you're going to propose solutions to fixing it.
The Slavery Party has consistently lied about the SS fixes proposed by the GOP:
And on and on... How do you Slavers suggest we solve SS? You refuse to even have an honest debate about it, because deep down you really hate older people. I mean that, you hate older people. You want them to die, you want them to only be used as pawns for your own power, then to hell with them.
Who gave them - misguided or not - a prescription drug benefit? Who raised the SS taxes to keep the programs going? It wasn't you heartless bastards on the left.
You truly are despicable, desperate, and evil people. Yes, I will say it - evil. Lies, slander, and outright death are your modus operandi to reach your own twisted goals.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 05:36 PMYou seem to think that Obama should get a pass... that we should not go after him the same way you leftist morons went after Bush.
That kind of delusion goes to the heart of being a leftist slimeball, since delusion is the critical element.
But seriously, fringers... I'm still waiting to get a feel for what it's like to be ignored again... just like the last cycle. It's kind of a hoot to watch your "change" agent become the centrist you so despise.
And factless, we've found something we can agree on... you spewed "There should be a conservative moderated site which would filter out a lot of the bigots and looney toon posters."
If such a site were to ever come into being, or if this site were to adopt such a system, we'd never hear from you again. There's some irony in your request since it would result in your silence.
Odd, that.
I had one candidate this cycle, the rest of the time being spent on business clients. That candidate was the one that returned control of the Clark County Commission to Republicans for the first time in 32 years... even tho Clark went for Obama.
But no, since all the important spots have been taken, Smith isn't going anywhere. And frankly, Pam couldn't afford me.
Posted by: Hinton on December 7, 2008 05:47 PMKeep defending your buddy Bush, pudgie. I realize that you do know he has taken more vacation days than any president in history. Of course, if he worked more things would be even worse:
The largest budget deficit in history
(Pudgie will try to blame it on the democrats - but as everyone with half a brain knows - the President has veto power)
The worst economic performance since Hoover.
9/11 on his watch and his adminstration de-emphasized the threat from al-qaida.
More organized corruption than ever before - with Abramoff coordinating with Delay, Rove, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist.
The WMDs that were never found.
The incompetent Brownie and Katrina.
Sending in too few troops and firing Shinseki for saying that (I notice Obama is hiring the people that actually knew what they were talking about).
Oh, and how is bin Laden doing? Weren't we going to hunt him down?
One failure after another - that has characterized bush's term. Who can forget Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Brownie and the other incompetents he hired?
An FDA and an EPA that disregard the science. Partisan politics at trhe Justice dept.
Torture, illegal wiretapping all in blatant disregard for the constitution.
What hasn't Bush ruined?
Posted by: correctnotright on December 7, 2008 06:41 PMThe largest budget deficit in history
(Pudgie will try to blame it on the democrats - but as everyone with half a brain knows - the President has veto power)
The budget is written and passed by Congress. I am not saying Bush deserves no responsibility; I am saying Congress clearly has primary responsibility, and that the greatest deficit is from a Democratic Congress. Two unassailably true statements. In fact, the deficit was dropping dramatically until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.
The worst economic performance since Hoover.
Only if you fudge the data to make it seem so. Besides, almost none of the performance is directly attributable to anything Bush did, or didn't, do.
his adminstration de-emphasized the threat from al-qaida.
False. That never happened. In fact, the Bush administration was in the process of implementing Richard Clarke's plan (something Clinton never did) when 9/11 happened.
More organized corruption than ever before
False. You must be very young, or have a very short memory.
The incompetent Brownie and Katrina.
Louisiana itself bears almost all the responsibility for the loss of property and life and slow response of aid.
Sending in too few troops and firing Shinseki for saying that
False. That never happened.
An FDA and an EPA that disregard the science.
False. That never happened.
Partisan politics at trhe Justice dept.
Not any more than every other Justice Department.
Torture, illegal wiretapping all in blatant disregard for the constitution.
There's nothing about torture in the Constitution, and the wiretapping was backed up by the Clinton J.D. and the Congress (including Democrats at the time) and the head of the FISA Court of Review. I tend to agree the wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment, and Bush bears responsibility, but everyone backed him up on it: it was clearly an institutional problem.
And Obama wants to violate the Constitution in far greater ways, especially in regard to the Second and Tenth Amendments.
I am, under the circumstances which Obama found himself in at Harvard Law. He had a gift of gab as good as Slick Willie's, and the state of Harvard institutional politics at the time was quivering with such yearning to install such a figurehead as Editor that it did not matter whether he, unlike previous Editors, had no track record writing legal analyses.
That situation is a strong parallel with the eagerness on the parts of folks in academics, the news media and Hollywood to install such a figurehead as President of the United States. It does not matter to them that he has no executive experience (other than his failed tenure as chairman of the Annenberg challenge), nor national service (other than his paltry few months in the Senate), nor specific legislative accomplishments. In the politically correct world, he's the right guy at the right time, and his tidal wave of campaign contributions (from such conveniently anonymous donors) shows that media-induced celebrity counts more than sober considerations of governance when organizing a stampede of voters.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 7, 2008 06:57 PMWhat are you talking about. I know one of the people we sent to manage reconstruction in Iraq and he is over 50 with 30+ years of Engineering experience. He says they are accomplishing alot now the surge has worked and the violence is way down.
Posted by: KW64 on December 7, 2008 07:04 PMWindmills only average operating at 25% of capacity but their transmission lines have to be built for 100%. Very inefficient. Also windmill power costs 11 cents or more per kwh. Nuclear costs 2 to 5 cents and it averages 96%+ of peak capacity for average generation; so transmission lines do not have to be over-built.
Its a slam dunk Facts; nuclear beats windmills hands down. Oh and by the way, right now, gasoline is cheaper than electricity for fueling your car. Down the road, when we have enough nuclear power plants to make hydrogen from the sulfuric acid/Iodide process, we can go to fuel cells. Until then, just build fuel efficient cars OK?
Posted by: KW64 on December 7, 2008 07:22 PMPresident-elect Obama realizes this task will not be easy and is taking a reasoned approach. I don't see FDR's approach as having been a very good one to use. Too much reliance on Government. Historians have substantive evidence that the New Deal made the Great Depression up to 9 years longer than it needed to be. Hopefully, common sense and reason instead of ideology will affect how the President-to-be responds to the Economy. The private sector needs to play a significant role in our economic recovery.
Posted by: KS on December 7, 2008 07:24 PMSending in too few troops and firing Shinseki for saying that (I notice Obama is hiring the people that actually knew what they were talking about).
And yet you're wrong again - ignorant or lying, I'll let you claim it for yourself. See, even FactCheck busts your lie. Shinseki planned to retire a full YEAR before his testimony.
And his testimony of needing hundreds of thousands of troops was also wrong (in fact, it needed just over 150,000 troops at the peak of the surge).
You're simply a partisan, pathetic hack. And yet again, called out on a lie - proven so - you will ignore it...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 07:31 PMThat's what some politicians have said, but it's not true and never has been. What makes you think it is?
Posted by: Bruce on December 7, 2008 07:34 PMPudge - you obviously don't understand Social Security and how it works or should work- Yes it needs additional funding and the 'rich' are entitled to a payment based on their input but the program is underfunded and the 'rich' who make over $102K per year need to contribute their full share that the 'poor' people do. The 'rich' do not need the same percentage of payments based on their input but they do need a payment (So as you put it Social Security is not a 'Ponzi' scheme.) So the 'Rich' have have the wherewithal to fully fund the program. And yes if you insist - it could be considered a 'welfare' program.
So since you seem to fully understand the problems with Social Security - How would you fix it?
Posted by: me on December 7, 2008 08:56 PM"The way Social Security works is that what you pay into it is YOURS to get back later."
That's what some politicians have said, but it's not true and never has been.
What about do you falsely believe is untrue? Perhaps you mean I am saying you will get it all back dime for dime, but I am not saying that. You do receive your benefits proportionately to what you put in, and that may end up being more or less than you actually put in depending on how long you live.
"me":
you obviously don't understand Social Security and how it works
No, see, that's my line to you. Because what you said literally made no practical sense.
Yes it needs additional funding and the 'rich' are entitled to a payment based on their input but the program is underfunded and the 'rich' who make over $102K per year need to contribute their full share that the 'poor' people do.
See, this is what I am talking about. The "rich" (and if you think $102K is rich, you need to get out more) pay in their "full share" already, by definition. If they paid more, they would get a greater benefit. And if they paid more and got proportionately LESS, then, again by definition, they would be paying MORE than their full share.
Raising the cap will not make more money available to everyone else, not once those "rich" people retire and start collecting benefits. It will temporarily increase the amount of money available, but create a much greater problem down the road.
The 'rich' do not need the same percentage of payments based on their input
So you want to reduce their benefits, as a percentage, below what they get now. So WHY NOT JUST REMOVE OR REDUCE THEIR EXISTING BENEFITS? The answer is obvious: because the left wants more control, which means taking in more money so they can have more of it to control. The simple answers don't give them the control they desire.
but they do need a payment
No, they do not. That is only a political ploy to keep more people supporting the program.
I love the logic of the left. Rich people can be taxed more because they can "afford" it, meaning they have money they don't "need." But when those people retire and still have enough money to live off of, they "need" a S.S. benefit.
The fact is that this isn't about what those people "need" at all, it's what they themselves WANT government to control.
Posted by: pudge on December 7, 2008 10:33 PMI guess pudge doesn't read much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html
KW64, did you know that nuclear power plants are so deadly no insurer will insure them? At any price? I wonder why?
Dan, yes Reagan did rejigger social security. So what?
And Pudge. Bush was so busy implementing Clarke's plan that Richard Clarke quit.... I have his book. Maybe you could read it.
"Louisiana itself bears almost all the responsibility for the loss of property and life and slow response of aid." And Pudge. This is a classic..... Who was going to respond? The National Guard from Iraq with their deep water vehicles in Iraq? Try Bush, and Brownie's new and improved FEMA?
If you really want to defend Bush, this will be fun. Before you do, read "The Wrecking Crew" (How conservatives rule) I especially like the part about Abramoff, Norquist, and Reed's criminal enterprises. Your "leaders" stealing from the natives, and not being indicted for playing both sides and getting cash from all directions, and then passing it out to the good old boys.
You can defend these slimeballs if you want. I would rather prosecute them.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 7, 2008 10:57 PMBarry talks one hell of a game, ... then he votes "PRESENT!"
The guy is a fantastic campaigner... but that's all he is, that's all he's done. It's up to HIM to prove himself to those of us that doubt his ability, question his judgement. He may be intellectual... but so what? So was Jimmy Carter. His presidency left the country in a shambles. What an embarassment he is.
We need a do-er, we got a talker.
We'll see.
Re Michelle @ 37, Tsk, tsk, you haven't gotten the memo: we are required to not only accept the election results (duh! that's what adults do) ... AND we must now honor, cheer and follow our leader ("PRESENT!")... can you say "bahhh, bahhh", little ewe?
I wonder... if he can choose "PRESENT!" as an all purpose response when he doesn't want to face any political consequences... why can't WE choose to say "PRESENT" in response to any discussion about him?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 7, 2008 11:52 PMYes, and we could start with misogynist's like yourself that squeal your hate. Example A, your post @ 35 reads:
"All would support "it takes a lot of lipstick [over $200,000 and still counting] not to make me a pig," Palin for president." Wow, talk about projecting.
You are the bigot and looney toon poster you speak of, now consider yourself filtered.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 8, 2008 06:06 AMLOOK OUT folks. The spending spree is on.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 06:48 AMI still disagree with your comments and you have yet to suggest a solution as I asked.
Seems standard - Republicans seem to have no solutions except in this case - lets privatize Social Security and watch people's savings drop by 40%.
Posted by: me on December 8, 2008 07:18 AMDid anyone noticed that Obama can't even tell the truth about his smoking. (did you stop) Ahhhh I fell off the wagon but?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 07:32 AMAs we have seen here time and again, any idiot (on this board, idiot=leftist) can snivel about our problems (much like, come to think of it, that lying, anti-American racist bigot the left so strongly supported for president)
The problem is in finding solutions. So far, our government seems incapable of accomplishing that goal. Our democrat congress continues to make Mr. Bush look wildly popular in comparison to their sorry efforts.
Me the Moron whines: "I still disagree with your comments and you have yet to suggest a solution as I asked."
Yet... MM offers... what? More of that income redistribution that his hero advocated?
So... the "rich" now have to pay for everything?
It sure is easy to see who those are here that have nothing to lose so they want those who've actually done something with their lives to pay for them.
The problem with SS is that it represents a pot of money.
Government at every level typically shows itself incapable of leaving money alone. Those on both sides of the aisle in government can always find a self-justification for taking this money away and replacing it with IOU's.
As someone who now finds himself "rich" under the in vogue definition (remember all Obama's tax cut lies and how that $250,000 figure has sunk to the floor?) I don't get this bizarre idea that because I put in 16 hour days 6 and 7 days a week that I should be the one to pay for your programs, MM.
Republicans have a variety of ideas about these issues. Because of your chronic BDS and hatred towards all things to the right of Lenin, you and your ilk like factless, wrong and Pacto, et al, go out of your way to attack those ideas regardless of merit. Good God, if you people put half as much energy into solving problems as you do whining about them, we wouldn't be facing the democrat wreckage of only 2 years of government control.
Social security needs to be modified. The objectives of the program have to be redefined.
People like the leftist morons here hate the "rich." They also seem mystified by the return response of the rich to mandatory redistribution efforts as proposed by the neo-comms here and in government... as if we should be grateful to not only pay the vast majority of income taxes but also insure that people like MM have a comfortable retirement... as if that wasn't MM's responsibility.
Personal responsibility plays no role in MM's life. Those of his ilk seem incapable of understanding that the primary source for social security type funding must be them.
Odd that leftists are all about "freedom of choice" when it comes to abortion.... but not so much when it comes to our own retirement.
But then, to be a leftist is to be a hypocrite.
So, let's take a few hundred billion dollars that democrats are using to pay off their political allies and put it in an actual trust fund.
Then, let's make sure that all deductions for social security actually go into this trust fund, and let's make sure that those monies are ONLY used for social security... and nothing else.
And let's allow those who decide to invest their social security money the right to choose. In other words, let's extend the right of choice to something besides the fall out of a bad decision resulting in pregnancy.
Since you asked.
But at least you did mention some interesting points at the end of your post. Thank you!
Posted by: me on December 8, 2008 08:50 AMNo, it's not proportionate. There is a relationship between wages and benefits, but involves selected years, indexing, and graduated rates. And again, there is no truth to your statement that the money you put in is held for your later withdrawal.
Posted by: Bruce on December 8, 2008 09:07 AM
Sorry if the facts get in the way. The system is going broke. Like it or not.
The gov running our retirement system is a joke and if this makes you worried. Wait till health care comes crashing home.
PS... I work in healthcare system. You hate waiting inline at ER's. You ain't seen nothing yet. More and more Doc's are getting out of the system. Their tired of a gov paper work that makes their job a nightmare.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 09:34 AMMassive budget deficits during that time and the worst financial performance since the great depression(as determined by the stock market performance, the job losses and the deficit)don't mean anything and blaming the democrats is the ONLY reply the little Pudgie has...must be nice to be living in a dream world where reality rarely intrudes.
I said: An FDA and an EPA that disregard the science.
Pudgie replies: False. That never happened.
Pudgie forgets to read:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-epa21dec21,1,1021228.story?coll=la-news-a_section
The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday.
"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/365806/exheads_of_epa_say_bush_ignores_environment/
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency -- five Republicans and one Democrat -- accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.
Integrity in Science Watch Week of 09/25/2006
Headlines
FDA Waives Conflict For Prof Negotiating Deal With Drug Maker
Under pressure from the White House and the Pentagon, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided not to set cleanup or safety standards for a toxic rocket fuel chemical that contaminates drinking water supplies for millions of Americans.
The Washington Post on Sunday reported EPA's decision, which has not yet been publicly announced. It is a victory for defense contractors who have been fighting to avoid expensive clean-up operations at rocket launch sites and other military facilities where improper disposal of perchlorate has polluted groundwater. Scientists have linked perchlorate to thyroid problems that could impair the development of fetuses, infants and young children.
http://www.ewg.org/node/27169
And on and on....if Pudge could read, maybe his false statments would change....
EPA Ignores Science, Enacts Weak Soot Rule
White House Nixed Media Appearance By Global Warming Scientist
Brit Scientists Blast ExxonMobil's Corporate Citizenship Report
Link: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200609252.html
Dan, yes Reagan did rejigger social security. So what?
I see, completely ignoring your blatant and hateful lie about 9/11 and Richard Clarke's own words under sworn testimony? How utterly Slaver of you!
About SS - Reagan was the last President to do something about SS. President Bush and the Congressional GOP tried to open debate but you hateful, evil people would rather scare grandma and grandpa and lie and steal than actually talk about real solutions.
Yes, the market is down 40% this year; over the last 20 it's up 700%. I'd gladly take a net 420% rise in my investments over 20 years with the stock market as opposed to the 56% you would have had with SS.
Face it - you are economically ignorant, you hate old people, and you choose to lie and slander simply because you loathe what you are.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 8, 2008 09:44 AMYet these same people say the earth has stopped warming since 1998 and this could be our coldest winter yet. Snow in London. Do even remember the last time it snowed there. ski areas opening months ahead of time. Europe.
Shell we talk about NASA and when they lied about the weather temps (hot) that were false and they tried to hide it, but got caught.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 09:45 AMAhhh, fool. Pudge didn't say zip at post 49.
Gezzzzzzzzz can you even get that right!
"Hinton, I am a moron? What, for voting for a president with an IQ in double digits?"
HAHAHA, You're the last person that I'd expect to call Obama dumb. I don't know about you, but in my book, smart people have IQ's well into triple digits.
Posted by: blindman on December 8, 2008 10:17 AMMaybe you need to get your facts straight about Shinsecki. This is from the military insiders magazine:
"Rummy fired the first barrage in his campaign to bring the Army to heel more than a year ago when he announced that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was toast 14 months before his term expired. Shinseki, a soldier who has served this nation with distinction for almost 40 years, suddenly found himself a lame-duck general in a military society unused to such rude, underhanded - and unprecedented - treatment of its senior leaders.
Then two weeks ago on a Friday night - after the Washington media had conveniently disappeared for the weekend - Rummy released shot No. 2 by calling in Secretary of the Army Thomas White, a West Point-trained war hero like Shinseki, and abruptly firing him. White, who'd become a boy general before checking out to make his mark in the corporate world, was treated like some inconsequential dishwasher sacked for breaking too much china. The word is that both White and Shinseki went down because they stood up to Rummy."
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_050703.htm
The loss experience by nuclear power plants is incredibly low. Maintaining Windmills is dangerous work; so is electrical line maintenance and running lines from remote windmills to urban centers will require lots of electrical lines.
Having talked to several of the "environmentalists" on a planning group I was appointed to, they made little bones about wanting energy intensive manufacturing to go away so they wanted high prices for electricity to drive them out. They wanted high energy prices across the board. I suspect the opposition to nuclear power is really based on the fact that it is cheap and would not drive "dirty big industry" out of business.
Politically correct France, Japan and Sweden all rely on nuclear power for most of their non-hydro electricity. If they can do it without hysterical fear, why can't the US.
Posted by: KW64 on December 8, 2008 11:06 AMBut misleading claims about Shinseki do not stop there. On Sunday's Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw identified Shinseki as "the man who lost his job in the Bush administration because he said we [would] need more troops in Iraq than Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld thought . . . at that time." But this oft-made charge is simply false. Service chiefs are appointed for a maximum of two two-year terms. It is true that Rumsfeld named Shinseki's successor a year before the end of his second term, but Shinseki finished that term before leaving -- he served for the entire time permitted by law. Shinseki was never "forced into early retirement."
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 11:14 AMAre you saying that the Harvard Law review is easy to get? -Posted by correctnotright at December 7, 2008 02:52 PM
The curriculum vitae of 4 "candidates" that meet and exceed your criteria:
1: Graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, an editor of The Michigan Law Review. Clerked for Justice on a Court of Appeals, then worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee and named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by a federal judge in 2001;
2: Dartmouth University, first female editor of the Dartmouth Review; Juris Doctor (JD) degree from the University of Virginia; Notes Editor of the University of Virginia School of Law, Law Review; law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, speechwriter for a recent presidential administration;
3: Graduated cum laude with a political science degree from the University of Missouri. He received his law degree from the University of Missouri Law School and was on the Missouri Law Review.
4: Bachelor's degree from Emory University and Master's and Doctorate in Modern European History from Tulane University ; taught History and Environmental Studies at West Georgia College for eight years; 20 years in US Congress; named a Time magazine "Person" of the Year
You have just elected:
1: Ann Coulter
2: Laura Ingraham
3: David Limbaugh
4: Newt Gingrich
***
TENSIONS RISING: LIBERALS UNNERVED BY OBAMA MOVES...
"Liberals are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss."Moonbatosphere laments that Obama not socialist enough (referring to above 3 page lamentation)
This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured (David Corn is not a Happy Bambi-ite)
It's no surprise that many progressives are -- depending on whom you ask -- disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied. ... But do these appointments amount to the kind of change that progressives, who were an essential part of Obama's political base during the campaign, can really believe in?
Yeehaw! The fun has just begun!
"I especially liked how earlier today he explained America does best if the poor, and the middle class make progress, and not just the extremely wealthy.He gets it.
This is true, but however, Obama doesn't get it. Government regulation is what creates the environment where only the rich benefit. Regulation limits competition and increases the cost of entry so that only the largest players and riches people can participate in the market.
Redistribution of wealth does *not* make any progress for the poor and the middle class in this country. Once the money is spent, they're back to where they started because the money is almost never spent on anything that creates long term wealth. Therefore the redistribution has to be a perpetual system to have any long term benefit and we've seen that redistribution systems are *never* perpetual. If it isn't the motion of the political pendulum that slices redistribution systems asunder, it is the people who have their assets stolen by the government either carving out loopholes or opting-out of the system altogether. That's why American jobs are leaving for other countries at record pace. The companies are opting-out of our second-highest-in-the-world corporate income tax, opting-out of the strictest consumer protection regulator regime in the world, opting-out of the costliest labor market in the world. Companies are simply opting-out of America, ending the opportunities for those left behind, all because of our monstrosity of a government.
Unionization does *not* help the poor or the middle class because once the union has forced the price of labor above the global market cost, all of the union jobs are sent to China/Mexico/Indonesia. If government regulation doesn't price American manufacturing out or the world market, unionization does. Unions are good when their focus is on maintaining a quality labor force rather than bleeding their parent companies dry. You can thank the unions for forcing American companies to push the development of cheap labor markets overseas. Why do you think Nixon really went to China? What was the realpolitik outcome? The realpolitik outcome was that China moved towards a market economy and opened up their country to foreign investors who paid for the development of the Chinese manufacturing industry. Our government has been pushing for the opening of foreign labor markets at the behest of American corporations seeking to avoid American regulation and taxation, plain and simple.
Free healthcare does *not* help the poor or the middle class because breaking the market economics of the system deteriorates quality and quantity by eliminating the (financial) incentive to be the best doctor you can and the (financial) incentive to reduce costs as much as possible.
Once the quality of healthcare goes down, you again have a two tiered system where the rich have the means to travel to where the healthcare is the best--which will probably be India soon--and the rest of us poor and middle class get the shitty government healthcare. If you want to see what government healthcare looks like, just visit a VA hospital.
The best way to fix the healthcare system would be to make a two pronged attack: first we need to eliminate the third party payment system that makes the HMO's possible. The third party payment system creates incentives for hospitals and doctors to run up the bill as high as possible whenever they can. There is no downward pressure in price because the patient is not the person paying the bill. There is no (financial) incentive to provide inexpensive, quality healthcare.
More money for public schools does *not* help the poor and middle class. More money will *not* attract good teachers nor create the competition necessary to weed out bad ones. The union-run tenure and payment system basically sets up cushy government jobs for teachers who do not have to perform to keep their jobs. They just have to avoid doing something stupid and they'll have a job for life, regardless of performance.
So, no Obama doesn't get it. He thinks he can control markets and use the government to direct prices and performance. Bush thought the same thing. This whole economic downturn we're in now is a market correction of a government-caused distortion in the lending industry. If Obama continues the same asinine approach, we'll see more tough market corrections. This is why I believe that the federal government will continue to move towards totalitarian control. They eventually won't be able to stave off a complete collapse and it will be their only option. Obama has already made it clear that "helping families" is a good enough excuse to ignore the Constitution.
So what would help poor and middle class families? It's simple really: smaller federal government. The federal government needs to be 1/3 of its current size or smaller with a budget to match. The income tax should be converted to a low flat tax with no loopholes. Reducing the federal tax burden will go a long way to keeping most tax revenue in the states, counties, and cities where the politicians are more accountable to the citizens as well as acutely aware of the local problems and the best approach to fixing them.
The social security system needs to be privatized just like the Chilean social security system. Not only would it remove the issue from national politics and end all the demagoguery, it would create much greater retirements for the poor and middle class. Relative to our system, your average Chilean gets about five times as much money from their social security accounts than we do here.
As for public education: vouchers, vouchers, vouchers. Every other nation on earth with better public school systems than ours, have a voucher based system. Most of Europe knows that a voucher system creates schools and teachers who are rewarded for performance and punished for failure. All through market forces rather than having some government bureaucrats picking winners and losers. In a voucher system, parents and students are rewarded with lots of choices in culture, setting, and curriculum. Parents are in control and thus have the choice to send their children to schools they are comfortable with and are free from all of the bullshit social engineering and leftist indoctrination we are subjected to here. In a voucher system, kids can't be held hostage by teacher's unions looking to extort more money from the taxpayers.
I don't understand why poor and middle class people put up with the public school system we have now. The public school system sucks, and the education market is clearly a two tiered system. Rich parents have the full range of choices for their children, they have the means to opt-out of the shitty public system when poor and middle-class parents cannot. The current public school system is elitist. Kids who go to private prep schools dramatically greater chance of attending an elite university which translates into a high paying job and long term wealth. So our existing system helps keeps the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Public school kids are far more likely to drop out, go to jail and make substantially less money than the kids of rich parents who go to private school.
If we had a voucher system, the education market would be leveled. Poor and middle class kids would have access to the same types of education opportunities that only rich kids have access to currently. Not to mention the variety of philosophies in education would flourish. Parents would get an education system that is much more responsive to their desires for their kids. In a voucher system, the government's role is only to set minimum standards and to provide oversight. If a school could lose it's eligibility to receive voucher money through failure to meet minimum standards, we'd see schools focusing on providing excellent education services. Without voucher money they'd go out of business. Right now, if a school fails to meet minimum standards, they continue to receive government money, they are allowed to keep the same failing teachers, the same failing curriculum, and the same failing policies. There are no consequences for failure and since failure is often the result of doing what is the easiest/cheapest, we're going to continue to see failure everywhere in the public schools. More money will not suddenly change that incentive. It will just make the failure cost taxpayers more money.
Obama doesn't get it. Neither did Bush. Nor Huckabee, Guiliani, Clinton, or any of the other presidential candidates this last time around. Probably the only two that did get it were Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.
Posted by: blindman on December 8, 2008 11:28 AMYes, an opinion column is SO much more authoritative than the highly referenced FactCheck.org entry about Shinseki.
But since the FACTS show you to be wrong, you simply will ignore them and listen to an echo chamber opinion piece that supports your view.
The FACTS are that Shinseki had submitted his retirement plans a full YEAR before he testified; he was not forced out, he was already leaving.
And the FACTS are that Shinseki was wrong about needing hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. At the peak, we had 162,000 troops in Iraq. A far cry from the hundreds of thousands that Shinseki claimed were needed.
So not only is your claim about why he left (he wasn't forced out, he had planned retirement for a year), but his conclusions about Iraq troop levels were wrong, too.
I guess you like getting everything wrong, and then using people proven to be wrong as your backup?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 8, 2008 11:39 AMIf we deregulated that and opened up the health market place to any group of people, we'd see health co-ops spring up everywhere. Image if your local gym sponsored a health insurance co-op open to it's members. As a group of people interested in good health, they would be able to negotiate a much cheaper health package than companies/unions can today who contain people in the usual health spectrum.
The other thing to do would be to push to end state-level coverage mandates. The reason healthcare is so expensive in WA in particular is because there are so many "required" features in a policy. You can't just get catastrophic coverage with a high deductible. You have to get a policy that covers stuff like acupuncture and chiropractor visits. Not everybody needs those things and by including them in everybody's policies, the state has forcibly increased the payout risk for the insurance companies which translates into huge hikes in premiums and co-pays.
Posted by: blindman on December 8, 2008 11:39 AMMedicare and the huge paper work that goes along with it. (leave it to uncle sam) Plus the pay out to doc's is quite low.
Hey RAGS............ nice. (-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 11:52 AMIt's amazing what being "in the know" does to a person's policy ideas. This isn't surprising to me. I bet those national security briefings are downright frightening. I also bet that those economic briefings are humbling, and I bet that most companies are downright hostile towards the government. So finally sitting in the hotseat and seeing everything from a President's perspective must change a person to his core.
I'm willing to bet that we'll see Obama change far more than Bush ever did. I think it is pretty clear that Obama is a person with critical thinking skills. Knowing all of the classified bits of information probably has him up at night right now. The only problem I have with Obama is that when a person is challenged liked this they have to fall back on their core principles and Obama's core principles are the typical elitist and authoritarian principles of the left. Bush's biggest problem was that his core principles were uncharacteristically elitist and authoritarian for a Republican.
We desperately need a President who's core principles are ones couched in liberty, freedom, and compassion. We need somebody who has read Marx, Mises, and Keynes and came out of it with the same thought that Albert Nock had:
[t]he practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed -- we have tried law, compulsion, and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of."
We need a President with the insight and humor of Milton Friedman, the confidence and hope of Reagan and intelligence and skill of Taft.
Posted by: blindman on December 8, 2008 12:07 PMWe desperately need a President who HAS core principles and who lives them.
"PRESENT!" doesn't illustrate many/any.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 8, 2008 12:15 PMI guess pudge doesn't read much.
So you admit you were lying when you said children were sent to manage reconstruction, when in fact, they were young adults sent to manage a budget and a stock exchange.
Bush was so busy implementing Clarke's plan that Richard Clarke quit.... I have his book. Maybe you could read it.
Clarke did not quit because his plan wasn't being implemented. Maybe YOU should read the book. Merely having the book is insufficient. It's well-established fact that the Clarke plan was being implemented. Clarke's main complaint is that it was happening too slowly.
I guess you don't read much.
Who was going to respond?
Firstly, Louisiana's own first responders. Duh. They were organized poorly, and many of them were busy violating civil rights by stealing legal firearms instead of helping people, due to the incompetent and criminal leadership of New Orleans. Second, the state was slow to REQUEST help.
I guess you don't read much.
Abramoff, Norquist, and Reed's criminal enterprises
Abramoff was a criminal. There's NO evidence to support allegations against the other two.
I guess you don't read much.
I still disagree with your comments
You haven't said what part of my comments you disagree with, or why, so I don't care that you say you disagree.
and you have yet to suggest a solution as I asked.
Yes, you asked, and as your question was irrelevant, I ignored it. I am under no obligation to provide a solution in order to point out that your "solution" makes no sense.
[Hinton] - Your ad hominem implication only shows your lack of intelligence on providing valid replies
Pot, kettle.
Massive budget deficits during that time and the worst financial performance since the great depression(as determined by the stock market performance, the job losses and the deficit)
Yes, again, if you fudge the data to make it look worse for Bush. For example, the job losses in 2001-2002 were mostly the result of the economy Bush inherited (unless you want us to blame Obama for everything that happens starting January 20?). Also, the economy is much broader than it was in the Great Depression and such a drop in the stock market doesn't have nearly the same impact as it does now.
And, again, the massive deficits now are primarily the responsibility of the Democrats who wrote and passed the budget.
An FDA and an EPA that disregard the science.
Yes, I understand that in your world of tiny little minds, that disagreement == "disregarding science."
That is what dishonest people do when they can't win an argument on the merits: they resort to such false statements of authority.
We know as a matter of fact that anthropogenic global warming is not established science, that there's many scientific reasons to believe that we are not going through a significant warming period at all, let alone one caused by man. This is obviously true. But dishonest people try to bully others into agreeing with them by shouting "science! science!"
Further, EPA decisions, like all government decisions, are not now, and have never been, based purely on science, so even if the decision is wrong on science, doesn't mean it is actually wrong, or that it is ignoring science.
If you could think clearly, you wouldn't have to be told this.
Rummy fired the first barrage in his campaign to bring the Army to heel more than a year ago when he announced that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was toast 14 months before his term expired.
You're so awesome.
First, there was no evidence produced that this ever happened. None. No named source was quoted, no report was ever produced, and the person supposedly named as Shinseki's successor was not ever appointed. (Medic/Vet, sorry to see you were sucked into that lie. There's so many of them it's sometimes hard to distinguish! :-)
Second, you are undermining your own argument. You said "Sending in too few troops and firing Shinseki for saying that." But now you are saying Shinseki was pushed out almost 10 months BEFORE that testimony: the testimony he was "fired" for came a mere FOUR months before his resignation.
So you quote a completely unreliable report that happened 10 months before the event you say led to his "firing."
Just AWESOME.
--KW64
Global warming, if it is caused by human impact and really is as bad as people make it out to be, is way to important of a problem to leave it up to the environmentalists. We could end all coal power generation in 10 years by building nuclear power plants. Nuclear is the backbone of Europe's sustainable energy plan, why isn't it ours? We certainly have the natural resources to support a nation wide nuclear power system.
No, it's not proportionate. There is a relationship between wages and benefits, but involves selected years, indexing, and graduated rates.
I didn't say DIRECTLY proportionate. But it is generally true that the more you put in, the more you put out, and increasing the amount you put in will increase the amount you get out.
And again, there is no truth to your statement that the money you put in is held for your later withdrawal.
A statement I neither made nor implied.
1. It's entertaining.
2. They willingly present themselves as willing targets.
3. Allowing the ridiculous claims and the utter nonsense they like to spew to go unanswered is tantamount to agreement and they will attempt to use it like a weapon.
4. It keeps ME sharp and more interested in finding REAL facts to slap them with.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 8, 2008 12:37 PMGlobal warming, if it is caused by human impact and really is as bad as people make it out to be, is way to important of a problem to leave it up to the environmentalists.
Economically, sure. But even if it is as terrible as the IPCC etc. say, it's still not all that bad.
That said, I'd love to end coal and replace it with nuclear.
Thanks, but I wasn't after the troop count. Just that the GEN's time was up and that was it.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 8, 2008 12:51 PMIt doesn't matter if it DID happen, since it happened so long before Shinseki's testimony it would completely undermine Kerry's lie (repeated here by Yawn) that he was fired over his testimony.
But there's no reason I can find to believe that this naming ever actually happened: no sources, no corroboration, no report, and the supposedly named person was never even named.
In response to "there is no truth to your statement that the money you put in is held for your later withdrawal", Pudge@92 writes: A statement I neither made nor implied.
Why do you hate truth?
Pudge@54 lies: You do receive your benefits proportionately to what you put in
From wikipedia: Two quantities are called proportional if they vary in such a way that one of the quantities is a constant multiple of the other
Why do you hate mathematics?
Posted by: Bruce on December 8, 2008 01:21 PM"Yes, you asked, and as your question was irrelevant, I ignored it. I am under no obligation to provide a solution in order to point out that your "solution" makes no sense."
So my question was not irrelevant. Social Security is going broke and I proposed a solution to fix it. Since you disagreed with solution what would you propose as your solution? Your nonsensical reply you first made "You don't know what you're talking about." only showed your lack of ability to discuss this issue seriously. So please forget to reply to this thread as you have already shown you don't have any solutions.
Thanks and have a good day.
Posted by: me on December 8, 2008 01:50 PMWhat if a year ago someone had told you that Nancy Pelosi would be in the business of reviewing the business plans of companies and deciding whether or not they would receive funding? I mean, Nancy Pelosi demanding a business plan? Harry Reid and Barney Frank as well? This is truly nuts!
It makes one wonder if perhaps the financial crisis were actually engineered to force the world of finance to go through federal gatekeepers. Such a strange world would allow the political class to make American business into an extension of political correctness. Want money? Well, first you have to have a labor union. Then you need to show us (Congress) how "green" you are. Your executives can't make more than we (members of Congress) do. What has your business done about "social justice" lately? Prove to us that you do not have a gender pay gap. And on and on. Looks like the Soviet Politburo.
I mean, this kind of vetting of business for political motives can be the only purpose, because the idea that the political illuminati know how to evaluate a business plan is preposterous. Look at the demands, after all. While the price of oil has dropped to near $40 per barrel, Detroit is being told that they must produce more "green" cars. With the price of gasoline headed back down to $1.50 or less, does anyone seriously think that Americans will change their appetite for large and safe SUVs? If anything, Detroit should stick even closer to producing the type of cars in which they have a competitive advantage: trucks and SUVs. In a sane business environment, Detroit would be abandoning the sedan market altogether. And this is not to say that I think electric cars are a bad idea - I LOVE THE IDEA.
What about those green cars? Electric or otherwise? Well, who ever thought Detroit had a competitive advantage in producing these cars? The only way for Detroit to enjoy a market for such cars would be for Washington to protect the Big Three from competition - both domestic and foreign - in this arena. Not something unthinkable as Democrats would like to protect the UAW above all else.
In a sane business environment nobody would be looking to Detroit to produce disruptive technology. There are other companies, entrepreneurs, and boy geniuses that are better suited to usher in these exciting new products. Detroit's competency is in producing gasoline powered large vehicles. It is also in lobbying for market restrictions that limit not only imports, but creating artificial barriers for even new domestic entrants (ever looked into what is required to get a car certified to be driven on public roads?).
I know this is hopeless, but in a sane world, our political illuminati would know something about disruptive technologies. They would have read Clayton Christensen's "The Innovators Dilemma." Christensen shows clearly in his landmark book that new technology that disrupts and replaces old technology, almost always at a lower cost, with increased efficiency, and greater capability, hardly ever comes from the powers-that-be in any particular industry. And trying to guess just where it will come from is a fool's game; unless you are in venture capital, in which case you have a say in who will produce these new technologies. Of one thing you can be sure, it will not come from the oversized beasts that ruled the last era of technology.
Automobiles that are not reliant on the internal combustion engine, if the free market were allowed to prevail, would not come from Detroit and its massive bureaucracy. It would come from people and companies that understand these new technologies. Or that can dream up entirely new technologies. Did IBM invent the personal computer? Did AT&T create the Internet? Even though the answer to both of these questions is no, did true innovators that did create these incredible things cause a massive loss of unemployment in the computer and telecom sectors? No, quite the opposite. Thanks to these innovators, I am holding an iPhone in my hand that surfs the Internet wirelessly, makes incredibly cheap phones calls, takes photos, holds my entire collection of music, does all sorts of neat things that help me organize my life, and even provides a source of entertainment (in addition to music) when I'm stuck on a long, miserable flight (provided by another lousy government subsidized and unionized industry).
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the spectacle of the past few days is poised to increase, perhaps to the extreme that comparison to the Soviet Politburo is more than just rhetoric. I hope he proves me wrong, but I fear that this is the world that Obama feels he has a mandate to create. Congress and Bush appear to be doing the groundwork for him.
Why do you hate truth?
Why don't you show me an example of lying? You didn't, you know.
Why do you hate mathematics?
Why do you hate dictionaries? There is, of course, a non-mathematical definition that does not require such constancy, but merely some sort of correspondence.
So my question was not irrelevant.
Yes, it was. Your question had nothing to do with your proposed solution, or my criticism of it. It was therefore irrelevant. This is an example of the red herring fallacy: instead of defending your point or attacking mine, you try to change the point.
Social Security is going broke and I proposed a solution to fix it.
One that made no sense, as I clearly pointed out, and you did not in any way contradict except to say "nuh uh!"
Since you disagreed with solution what would you propose as your solution?
That remains an irrelevant question.
Your nonsensical reply you first made "You don't know what you're talking about." only showed your lack of ability to discuss this issue seriously.
You are, of course, making an argumentum ad hominem fallacy here. You may falsely think that's what I did by pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, but no: I was not trying to dismiss your argument in any way by saying you don't know what you are talking about -- I was merely pointing it out, and then I went on to back it up -- but YOU are trying to dismiss MY argument by attacking me directly, which is, of course, fallacious.
If you would like to try to address my criticisms of your argument, feel free to do so, but you should drop the fallacies.
No amount of debate or facts will get you anywhere. In the world according to Pudge, the only important facts are those that Pudge DECIDES are important.
You see - Pudge would work well in the Stalinist system where opinions must conform to the state apparatchiks proper philosophy. All true facts stem only from the appropriate places and inconvenient facts from other sources are discounted or ignored.
Posted by: correctnotright on December 9, 2008 10:53 AMHow refreshing! Granted, its going to take a while to eliminate all the Bush cronies and incompetents from Government (over 150 officials with "degrees" from Pat Roberson's Regent "University"). But once we get smart, intelligent people in government again, this country will recover..and be better than ever!
Posted by: Proteus on December 9, 2008 11:44 AMSo you liked Reagan too!
What can be clearly noticed is that we now have a President who can speak in clear, coherent sentances.
As long as he doesn't have to do it extemporaneously.
No, what he can do is deliver a good speech. That in no way reflects any intelligence he may possess.
In fact, I submit his credentials are in doubt until and unless he can prove he earned entrance to various colleges and law school WITHOUT affirmative action.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 11:54 AMTell them what they've won, Johnny!
Did you watch the video Ragnar? Meet the Press is about as extemporaneous as it gets. Nothing "prepared" there.
And as for academics, once you are actually IN college, affirmative action, even a few decades ago did nothing. There is no "Grade adjustment" for being a minority. You don't get to the top of the class at Harvard Law through affirmative action.
Whats funny is that Bush CLEARLY benefited from affirmative action, as a "legacy" child and son of a president. You don't make it into Yale with Bush's high school grades. And you certainly don't make it into Harvard Business School with "gentleman's C's"
Posted by: Proteus on December 9, 2008 12:02 PMGreat. So you'll join us in asking for him to release the info from his time at Occidental College.
You don't get to the top of the class at Harvard Law through affirmative action.
Baloney.
My son, who is an attorney will gladly tell you that his "favorite" fellow law (and undergrad) students were those admitted by affirmative action: they didn't suddenly become 'smart', their work reflected their inability and, by extension, made everyone else look like geniuses. In order to maintain the reputation of the school and the ability to attract new students, they would pass these fellows along. Harvard has quite a reputation in that regard.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 12:13 PMGive it up Ragnar....this race wasn't even close!
Posted by: Proteus on December 9, 2008 12:28 PMNice try.
From a someone unequipped to know/say, (like you)that is merely subjective conjecture.
Last I checked, he won a large percentage of the college educated white vote.
So? "Bud...race has nothing to do with it."
Give it up Ragnar....this race wasn't even close!
And I never claimed it was. Neither was Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry. What's your point... besides general "Nyah hyah smarmy?
I did however claim correctly that you elected an affirmative action president, with no credentials, no experience, no core beliefs... "PRESENT!"
I also claimed it will be a ton of fun watching the liberal stooges in DC for the next two years.
Nope my side didn't win, but I am already enjoying/laughing at the spectacle. If it wasn't they could screw things up so spectacularly, this would be a great comedy.... instead it will become a herculean tragedy of irony.
We'll be here it pick upt the pieces.
See, what really bothers you lefties is that we are not whining, moaning and tearing our garments in despair. What really upsets your little "win" (and it will only be a win if he/they are successful) is that we have not jumped on the Barry idolatry bandwagon, that we dare to say with skepticism and doubt: "Prove yourself".
It's up to HIM.
Peons and sheep will neither browbeat us or convince us.
But it sure is entertaining to watch you try.
One day some of us were just standing around chatting when this girl who was on the periphery of the group came running up to us excitedly wiggling her hand (and really just rudely interrupting our conversation), said "Look what I bought!".
I think it was a ring. I don't remember. BUT it was if her whatever it was had no meaning, no joy until we validated it/her with appropriate 'oohs and aahs'. Collectively just looked at her like she was totally nuts.
That's what you Barry worshippers remind me of. Like her, like a little child, you want validation for what you did.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 01:27 PMPudge again tries to argue why he has no valid points about my proposal
You're lying. I offered specific points against your proposal.
My point was Social Security is going broke - How do we fix it? is very valid and all you can do is offer ad hominem attacks against my suggestion of increasing taxes over ten years to fund it.
You're lying. What I said, at the very beginning, was that this would increase the amount of money to be paid out to those payers in the future, which doesn't do anything to solve the problem in the long run, it just pushes the problem out further.
Further, I added that if your response is "we don't need to pay them back as much money on this additional tax" -- which was your response -- then why not just decrease the money they receive NOW? You had no answer to this except "they need that money," which is clearly false and self-contradictory: if these "rich" people needed it so badly in the future you wouldn't be pushing to increase their taxes now.
Your replies have been totally and only in the context of an right-wing extremist attacking me personally.
You're lying.
If you can't offer valid counter points please don't post.
That's my line.
You cannot provide a single example to back up any of your assertions. It would be funny to see you try, though. How about it?
It doesn't matter if you lean left, or right. What can be clearly noticed is that we now have a President who can speak in clear, coherent sentances.
I'll take Bush's "won't get fooled again" over Obama's "uhhhhhhhh"s any day.
A President who can have intelligent conversations..who is not afraid to talk to the best and brightest, even when they don't agree with him.
So you too believe the false claim that Bush didn't appear on Meet the Press?
Granted, its going to take a while to eliminate all the Bush cronies and incompetents from Government (over 150 officials with "degrees" from Pat Roberson's Regent "University").
Talk about Stalinist ... if you don't get your degree from the "right" school you shouldn't be allowed to work in government?!
But once we get smart, intelligent people in government again, this country will recover..and be better than ever!
Describe for me again how the Republicans are to blame for our problems, such as the problems caused by bad loans given out by GSEs.
Reagan, for all his flaws (dementia in second term)
You're lying.
Did you watch the video Ragnar? Meet the Press is about as extemporaneous as it gets. Nothing "prepared" there.
Did you watch Bush's Meet the Press appearances? Obviously not.
Whats funny is that Bush CLEARLY benefited from affirmative action, as a "legacy" child and son of a president. You don't make it into Yale with Bush's high school grades. And you certainly don't make it into Harvard Business School with "gentleman's C's"
You realize Bush had better grades than Kerry at Yale, right?
(Obama) is far more intelligent than Bush
No, he's not.
Obama spent two years at Occidental, then transferred to Columbia...an Ivy League school, and from there to Harvard Law.
What were his grades? We hear how he was a great student, but never once have his transcripts been made available. His thesis? Gone. None of his collegiate records are there.
So how do we know he was a good student, and actually earned his positions rather than being rewarded for some reason other than competency?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 9, 2008 05:28 PMWhile I agree we can't know he was a good student, I DO NOT CARE whether he was a good student. I care what he says and does now, and yes, he seems to be a reasonably intelligent person.
Let's say for the sake of argument he's smarter than Bush (color me unconvinced, but for the sake of argument). How does that matter when many of his policies violate the Constitution? When his stated tax policies will hurt businesses and therefore lose jobs? Etc.
Being smart isn't everything. As everyone should know by the time they get out of school -- at whatever age -- being smart doesn't mean being right, or being good at your job. And worse, being good at school doesn't make you smart, or anything else, other than good at school. Most of us realize that life is not school (thankfully).
Posted by: pudge on December 9, 2008 05:57 PMMy point was Social Security is going broke - How do we fix it?
That was my original point is still very valid and all you can do is offer ad hominem attacks against my suggestion of increasing taxes over ten years to fund it and accuse me of lying.
You said:
"What I said, at the very beginning, was that this would increase the amount of money to be paid out to those payers in the future, which doesn't do anything to solve the problem in the long run, it just pushes the problem out further."
So you are wrong - yes the output money would would increase but the fix would be to decrease the percentage of Social Security payments for those folks that can afford it (i.e. The 'Rich') Yes they would still get a payment but not to the same percentage that someone who only made $40,000 dollars his last year of work as opposed to $400K or $4M. And yes that does define a welfare system but in affect that is exactly what Social Security is and always has been.
You said:
"Further, I added that if your response is "we don't need to pay them back as much money on this additional tax" -- which was your response -- then why not just decrease the money they receive NOW? You had no answer to this except "they need that money," which is clearly false and self-contradictory: if these "rich" people needed it so badly in the future you wouldn't be pushing to increase their taxes now."
As I said my suggestion is that the 'Rich' can afford not to get as much money as a percentage as the 'Poor' do as Social Security payments. So what is wrong with that? You apparently misunderstood my original remark that the 'Rich' do not need the Social Security payments as much as the 'Poor' do. The current payments are limited anyway if your last maximum of 35 best years of income exceed the current limits as there is a Social Security payment maximum. Your question "then why not just decrease the money they receive NOW?" is already built into the system. (Duh) Please go to http://www.ssa.gov/ and start studying!!
You said:
"Your replies have been totally and only in the context of an right-wing extremist attacking me personally. You're lying."
Nope your replies have been totally out of context of an intelligent person that might fully understand the problems of the Social Security system. If you can offer valid counter points that indicate you fully understand the problem then please post them otherwise don't accuse people of lying and expect to 'stand out' in the discussion. Accusing people of lying and not offering valid counter points only shows your lack of in-depth knowledge of the problem.
My point was Social Security is going broke - How do we fix it?
And then you offered a solution. And I pointed out how that solution makes no sense.
all you can do is offer ad hominem attacks against my suggestion of increasing taxes over ten years to fund it and accuse me of lying.
You ARE lying, because my criticism of your point is not an ad hominem attack at all (it is not possible for it to be such, since your suggestion is not a person). And pointing out the fact that you are lying is not an ad hominem attack either.
Anyone reading this can clearly see not only that I offered far more than ad hominem attacks, but that you DID make ad hominem attacks against me. So you're not only lying, you're being a hypocrite.
So you are wrong
No, I am not.
yes the output money would would increase but the fix would be to decrease the percentage of Social Security payments for those folks that can afford it
And as I said, you could simply reduce their benefits NOW and achieve the same thing, rather than increasing taxes only to reduce benefits later.
As I said my suggestion is that the 'Rich' can afford not to get as much money as a percentage as the 'Poor' do as Social Security payments. So what is wrong with that?
Other than that it has nothing to do with my point? I was talking about reducing benefits now for the "rich." (Oh, also, your claim that they can "afford" it is completely baseless in fact: it presupposes you know what they use their money for, and you don't know that.)
Your question "then why not just decrease the money they receive NOW?" is already built into the system.
No, it's really not. If that were the case, Warren Buffett would not get a S.S. retirement benefits check. Please do some research, then get back to me.
Nope your replies have been totally out of context of an intelligent person that might fully understand the problems of the Social Security system.
You're lying.
If you can offer valid counter points
Already done.
Accusing people of lying
As proven, you did lie. Repeatedly.
... and not offering valid counter points only shows your lack of in-depth knowledge of the problem.
And saying I offered no valid counterpoints only further shows your level of dishonesty.
Posted by: pudge on December 9, 2008 11:05 PMOf course not. However, their performance on Meet the Press is what matters. When Bush speaks, he comes across as a bumbling moron.
"Let's say for the sake of argument he's smarter than Bush (color me unconvinced, but for the sake of argument). How does that matter when many of his policies violate the Constitution? When his stated tax policies will hurt businesses and therefore lose jobs? Etc."
Which of his proposed policies violate the constitution? He was a professor of constitutional law..I think he has a clue here. But please, enlighten us. How exactly will his tax policies hurt businesses? Democrats are far better for GDP growth than Republicans, this is historical FACT. Trickle-down voodoo economics was debunked a long time ago. Large corporations pay far too little in tax as it is..its small business that needs a tax cut..and they will get one. And of course, Obama's tax policies will not be affecting the majority of businesses that choose to incorporate.
Posted by: proteus on December 10, 2008 06:29 AMI fully agree that education does not equal intelligence! Some of the brightest people I've met never completed high school, and I've met so many mouth-breathers who had PhDs I've lost count.
But for some reason the Left equates intelligence with education (especially in the soft social fields, not the hard, 100% fact-based fields like engineering and mathematics). So if that's their basis for the claim of his intelligence, I'd love to know just what grades are required to be intelligent.
Or is it merely the conveyance of the paper? In which case they MUST admit that Bush is intelligent because of his MBA and Ivy League school degrees.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 10, 2008 07:02 AMPudidiot lies again. Your replies are total nonsense
Of course not. However, their performance on Meet the Press is what matters. When Bush speaks, he comes across as a bumbling moron.
So you didn't watch it.
Which of his proposed policies violate the constitution?
Universal health care, obviously, for starters. Completely unconstitutional, a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
How exactly will his tax policies hurt businesses?
Um. If you really need to be told how raising taxes on businesses and their investors hurts businesses, then you're beyond hope.
Democrats are far better for GDP growth than Republicans, this is historical FACT.
No, in fact, it is not a fact at all. It's sad that you were sucked in by such an obviously false statistic, which is wrong in many, many ways. For starters, that measurement fails to properly assign years to the President that most influenced them: for example, Obama will get "credit" for the economic performance of 2009, even though it's a budget that was passed under Bush, with policies primarily implemented under Bush.
Worse, however, is that it falsely assigns 2008 as a "Republican" year even though it's a Democratic budget with many policies implemented (or rejected) primarily by Democrats.
Trickle-down voodoo economics was debunked a long time ago.
No, that never happened.
Large corporations pay far too little in tax as it is
No, they don't.
..its small business that needs a tax cut..and they will get one.
Some will, some will not. Obama vowed to raise taxes on some of them. Did you forget about the promise to raise taxes on overseas companies?
Posted by: pudge on December 10, 2008 09:00 AMSee, that is another ad hominem attack from you.
Once again, if you'd like to actually address my POINTS, feel free. If you'd like to just throw out logical fallacies, well, feel free to do that too, you only hurt yourself.
Posted by: pudge on December 10, 2008 09:01 AMBut for some reason the Left equates intelligence with education (especially in the soft social fields, not the hard, 100% fact-based fields like engineering and mathematics).
Because as usual, the left doesn't like to deal with facts. Facts are hard. Facts are messy. They would rather just invent some false measurement of the facts so they don't have to deal with actual facts.
Examples:
* Gregoire's false claim that "we don't have a deficit"
* Scientists' false claim that the IPCC report concludes man causes significant global warming
* Democrats' false claim that the economy performs better under Republicans
* Atheists' false claim that Intelligent Design == Creationism
And so on. Actually dealing with the issue is hard, so they lie. And saying that educational record is relevant is just another way of lying in this manner, and even "better," it can be used as a tool to back up the other lies: "this person has a better diploma so we should listen to him say that there's nothing unconstitutional about universal health care." A clear example of the genetic fallacy, but they don't care.
So if that's their basis for the claim of his intelligence, I'd love to know just what grades are required to be intelligent.
Agreed, but regardless, I still would rather refuse to concede the insipid point up front.
Posted by: pudge on December 10, 2008 09:07 AM