I just got (from Ang) a new 19 inch LCD flat screen computer monitor for my birthday (we rescheduled celebrating it until our schedules meshed), plus a wireless mouse & key board. Tonight I will be adressing "Bush's War" & various other things (regarding recent posts) after watching it in its entirety online - might as well with this sweet view! Apparently, via my discussion with Titus, I didn't the first time around - a guy can only take so much PBS I suppose (& the tax dollars comment stung.... Charlie Rose indeed).
At any rate, check in late tonight or tomorrow....
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Bush's War
Jambo has recommended the program by Frontline called “Bush’s War” for a week now, and I have been either too busy or too lazy to watch it… until today. I know he has seen it, and I am under the impression that Ryan has seen it, as well. I know that watching a PBS program must be physically painful for a man like Ryan, but I do hope he watched the whole thing. After all, some of his taxes helped fund it….
This is as close to an “objective” over-view of the lead-up and initial stages of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq as you will likely find in America today. I am especially impressed with the additional content offered by PBS on their web site… they read like footnotes to the documentary, and add an additional dimension to the experience that you simply wouldn’t have by just watching TV.
The questions this program raises about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq is particularly interesting to me. Anyone can look at the contributing interviews of many of the people that went into the making of this show as questions asked of people with determined opinions and agendas, but the strength of the show is that no ONE opinion is fronted as correct, unless it is substantiated by numerous others. Richard Clarke, for example, has had his opinions and views brought to question, but nothing he says or contributes to the program is unsupported by other facts or sources. THIS is real journalism.
Sources vary from the New York Times (very liberal) to the Weekly Standard (very conservative), and the interviews used range from Gen. David Petraeus, US Army, to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, and Collin Powell to Caspar Weinberger.
The conclusions made in this program are ones I would love to discuss at length in this forum. In only the few hours that have past since I watched it the first time, I have gone back and watched numerous “chapters” again, and have found innumerable resources on the web via the material and links found that the PBS site.
To think that if each and every situation described in this program were even partially accurate, than the manner in which the first Bush Administration conducted itself prior to the invasion of Iraq is shocking in the extreme. To think that people like Rumsfeld and Cheney would place personal pride and political in-fighting before the concerns of American foreign policy interests and national security are mind-blowing enough, but the ability of Bush to knowingly allow this situation to develop to the point it did, then follow through with what he was told by no fewer than 50% of his senior Cabinet officials was patently wrong really does make me wonder what the post-Presidency of Bush is going to bring to history.
This isn’t conspiracy theory, and this isn’t unsubstantiated rumors floating around the “Beltway”. These are corroborated facts and documented actions by the nations “top level” leaders… the SecDef, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Vice President, the President, the Sec. of State, and the National Security Advisor. This is as “big” a documentary that I have seen since I first watched “Fahren-HYPE 9/11” back in 2004.
If you haven’t seen it, watch it. The online version is easy to use, and you won’t be able to keep up with my arguments if you don’t watch it… that’s not a slam on anyone, but I am going to demand that any Bush apologist be ready to respond to my questions clearly and with no hesitation. I’m willing to accept that some aspects of this program are biased and may have inaccurate depictions of what actually happened, but those inaccuracies will have to be proven above and beyond what the producers of “Bush’s War” have done.
This is as close to an “objective” over-view of the lead-up and initial stages of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq as you will likely find in America today. I am especially impressed with the additional content offered by PBS on their web site… they read like footnotes to the documentary, and add an additional dimension to the experience that you simply wouldn’t have by just watching TV.
The questions this program raises about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq is particularly interesting to me. Anyone can look at the contributing interviews of many of the people that went into the making of this show as questions asked of people with determined opinions and agendas, but the strength of the show is that no ONE opinion is fronted as correct, unless it is substantiated by numerous others. Richard Clarke, for example, has had his opinions and views brought to question, but nothing he says or contributes to the program is unsupported by other facts or sources. THIS is real journalism.
Sources vary from the New York Times (very liberal) to the Weekly Standard (very conservative), and the interviews used range from Gen. David Petraeus, US Army, to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, and Collin Powell to Caspar Weinberger.
The conclusions made in this program are ones I would love to discuss at length in this forum. In only the few hours that have past since I watched it the first time, I have gone back and watched numerous “chapters” again, and have found innumerable resources on the web via the material and links found that the PBS site.
To think that if each and every situation described in this program were even partially accurate, than the manner in which the first Bush Administration conducted itself prior to the invasion of Iraq is shocking in the extreme. To think that people like Rumsfeld and Cheney would place personal pride and political in-fighting before the concerns of American foreign policy interests and national security are mind-blowing enough, but the ability of Bush to knowingly allow this situation to develop to the point it did, then follow through with what he was told by no fewer than 50% of his senior Cabinet officials was patently wrong really does make me wonder what the post-Presidency of Bush is going to bring to history.
This isn’t conspiracy theory, and this isn’t unsubstantiated rumors floating around the “Beltway”. These are corroborated facts and documented actions by the nations “top level” leaders… the SecDef, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Vice President, the President, the Sec. of State, and the National Security Advisor. This is as “big” a documentary that I have seen since I first watched “Fahren-HYPE 9/11” back in 2004.
If you haven’t seen it, watch it. The online version is easy to use, and you won’t be able to keep up with my arguments if you don’t watch it… that’s not a slam on anyone, but I am going to demand that any Bush apologist be ready to respond to my questions clearly and with no hesitation. I’m willing to accept that some aspects of this program are biased and may have inaccurate depictions of what actually happened, but those inaccuracies will have to be proven above and beyond what the producers of “Bush’s War” have done.
Let's talk pundits...
I really can’t stand Sean Hannity.
I was riding in to work last night and listening to Hannity’s repeat program from Thursday. Perhaps Sean’s biggest fan in NV already heard the show…
He pissed me off by saying that HE was far more open-minded and rational than a Democrat because HE could put the petty issues aside for the good of the country, when discussing issues about the general election.
While Democrat argues with Democrat and Clinton and Obama exchange barbs and slights in the primary count-down, Sean can agree with McCain 85% of the time, and has no issues supporting him, even though he isn’t a “Reagan Conservative” like Sean.
Sean agrees 85% of the time with McCain… and that must be on issues like fighting the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to WIN, building and securing the fence on the border, lower taxes coupled with reduced Government spending to stimulate the economy, and NO ear-marks or pork in new legislation.
It’s the 15% of his platform that he doesn’t agree with McCain on that got me miffed yesterday… Sean said he would continue to fight against McCain’s “liberal” leanings in areas like:
GITMO. Hannity makes the argument that McCain is closing GITMO because of pressure from the liberal crowd here in the US and international pressure from pro-Arab societies in Europe and the Middle East. He says that McCain’s position on “torture” is misguided and will hurt the US in its war on terror.
Let’s be absolutely clear on one thing… McCain has repeatedly said that if the Federal government wants to use such interrogation techniques as “water-boarding” in its effort to gain meaningful intelligence from detainees… then the LAW must be CHANGED to reflect this need. All the man is saying is that as long as it is patently ILLEGAL to use techniques like water-boarding according to established US law, be it US Code of Federal Regulation or the UCMJ… then no agency, facet or arm of the United States Government should be using it.
I don’t think that’s pandering to the “left”, nor do I think it shows a weakness in his national security position… it simply shows that the man feels that NO facet of this government is above the law. Period. If the Feds want to water-board to gain information, change the law so that it is no longer ILLEGAL to do so.
As for closing GITMO detention centers, there are currently 355 detainees at GITMO, and NONE of them have been charged with a crime. ALL have been labeled “enemy combatants”, but none have been given legal representation under US law, and no charges have been filed. The Feds announced last month that 6 of the 355 would remain in the US to face charges dealing with the 9/11 attacks, but all the rest (349) would be released to their respective nations to face charges there… meaning nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Jordan. In the last 5 years, no additional detainees have been taken to GITMO… so these are the last of the 750+ detainees the three camps at GITMO will house in the foreseeable future.
Why NOT send them back to the nations they “belong” to? What are the chances that the Saudis will be more lenient on these men than the US has been? Or Egypt? Or Syria? Why is it wrong to spend tax dollars on supporting Mexican nationals incarcerated in the US for breaking our laws, but perfectly fine to do the same for 349 “enemy combatants” over the last 7 years? If we’re supposed to deport Mexican criminals to Mexico… why not Egyptians to Egypt, or Saudis to Saudi Arabia?
Rebuilding our “image”. I recall stating more than one time within this forum (in all its varied incarnations) that the US should always lead by example when it comes to foreign policy, and we all know this rarely happens. History is replete with points where we said one thing, and did another. These happenings have grown a bit more noticeable over the last 15 years, and this needs to be addressed. Our moral and ethical position CANNOT be based on intention alone, we MUST be able to categorically show that our actions rise to the same level as our intentions at every possible opportunity.
This is an admirable and honest position for McCain to make, and I think he should be applauded for the effort to make this a focal point in his campaign. I can’t think of ONE reasonable or rational argument for NOT changing the very foundation of our foreign policy AND its agency (the State Department) for a “new” century and a new era of international conflict. Especially since so much of that conflict will probably be conducted in unconventional ways against civilian populations.
Environmentalism. As I have stated countless times in the past, this does NOT have to be a four-letter word to the GOP. Rational and reasonable managing of natural resources in a nation that does, indeed, have a finite amount of many vital resources is simply good planning, not pandering to a paranoid fringe. Giving profitable tax relief to companies and manufacturers that can both maintain productivity and reduce pollution or waste is a fantastic way to stimulate an economy AND promote a “greener” America. No concessions need be made to such dubious threats as “global warming”, when simple, measurable means like “cleaner, less polluting” measures can work just as well and go MILES further to make the public sympathetic to the effort. To suggest that ONLY the subscribers to “global warming” are behind an American grass-roots movement to protect and preserve American environmental heritage is simply false… look at the nightmare Reagan had to deal with when he appointed James Watt as Sec. of the Interior in 1981. The man made Ron’s life a nightmare for the next two years, simply be making statements that the public took to mean that “no preservation is needed.” Rational managing of the nation's vast and varied resource base is simply good, long-term planning, and certainly doesn’t mean that profitable and measurable use can’t still be made of these resources now.
The effects that this kind of management can have are plainly visible in organization’s efforts like Ducks Unlimited, the American Whitetail Association, and the Roughed Grouse Society… all of which have promoted and PRODUCED vast improvements to the species they promote and the HUNTERS and GUN-OWNERS that hunt those species. No fewer than 11 species of ducks and geese that bordered on endangered only 35 years ago are now thriving and harvestable nation-wide, thanks to DU… and you simply AREN’T going to find a more CONSERVATIVE group of voters than the members of Ducks Unlimited. I dare you to try…
Nothing that Hannity points out as “flawed” in the McCain platform is flawed to me… and nothing he bases his arguments on seems worth the time it took me to write this rebuttal. I'm not even a Republican, either.
That’s why I can’t stand Hannity…
I was riding in to work last night and listening to Hannity’s repeat program from Thursday. Perhaps Sean’s biggest fan in NV already heard the show…
He pissed me off by saying that HE was far more open-minded and rational than a Democrat because HE could put the petty issues aside for the good of the country, when discussing issues about the general election.
While Democrat argues with Democrat and Clinton and Obama exchange barbs and slights in the primary count-down, Sean can agree with McCain 85% of the time, and has no issues supporting him, even though he isn’t a “Reagan Conservative” like Sean.
Sean agrees 85% of the time with McCain… and that must be on issues like fighting the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to WIN, building and securing the fence on the border, lower taxes coupled with reduced Government spending to stimulate the economy, and NO ear-marks or pork in new legislation.
It’s the 15% of his platform that he doesn’t agree with McCain on that got me miffed yesterday… Sean said he would continue to fight against McCain’s “liberal” leanings in areas like:
- Closing GITMO detention center
- Rebuilding America’s “image” with the international community
- Re-thinking the GOP position on “environmentalism”
GITMO. Hannity makes the argument that McCain is closing GITMO because of pressure from the liberal crowd here in the US and international pressure from pro-Arab societies in Europe and the Middle East. He says that McCain’s position on “torture” is misguided and will hurt the US in its war on terror.
Let’s be absolutely clear on one thing… McCain has repeatedly said that if the Federal government wants to use such interrogation techniques as “water-boarding” in its effort to gain meaningful intelligence from detainees… then the LAW must be CHANGED to reflect this need. All the man is saying is that as long as it is patently ILLEGAL to use techniques like water-boarding according to established US law, be it US Code of Federal Regulation or the UCMJ… then no agency, facet or arm of the United States Government should be using it.
I don’t think that’s pandering to the “left”, nor do I think it shows a weakness in his national security position… it simply shows that the man feels that NO facet of this government is above the law. Period. If the Feds want to water-board to gain information, change the law so that it is no longer ILLEGAL to do so.
As for closing GITMO detention centers, there are currently 355 detainees at GITMO, and NONE of them have been charged with a crime. ALL have been labeled “enemy combatants”, but none have been given legal representation under US law, and no charges have been filed. The Feds announced last month that 6 of the 355 would remain in the US to face charges dealing with the 9/11 attacks, but all the rest (349) would be released to their respective nations to face charges there… meaning nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Jordan. In the last 5 years, no additional detainees have been taken to GITMO… so these are the last of the 750+ detainees the three camps at GITMO will house in the foreseeable future.
Why NOT send them back to the nations they “belong” to? What are the chances that the Saudis will be more lenient on these men than the US has been? Or Egypt? Or Syria? Why is it wrong to spend tax dollars on supporting Mexican nationals incarcerated in the US for breaking our laws, but perfectly fine to do the same for 349 “enemy combatants” over the last 7 years? If we’re supposed to deport Mexican criminals to Mexico… why not Egyptians to Egypt, or Saudis to Saudi Arabia?
Rebuilding our “image”. I recall stating more than one time within this forum (in all its varied incarnations) that the US should always lead by example when it comes to foreign policy, and we all know this rarely happens. History is replete with points where we said one thing, and did another. These happenings have grown a bit more noticeable over the last 15 years, and this needs to be addressed. Our moral and ethical position CANNOT be based on intention alone, we MUST be able to categorically show that our actions rise to the same level as our intentions at every possible opportunity.
This is an admirable and honest position for McCain to make, and I think he should be applauded for the effort to make this a focal point in his campaign. I can’t think of ONE reasonable or rational argument for NOT changing the very foundation of our foreign policy AND its agency (the State Department) for a “new” century and a new era of international conflict. Especially since so much of that conflict will probably be conducted in unconventional ways against civilian populations.
Environmentalism. As I have stated countless times in the past, this does NOT have to be a four-letter word to the GOP. Rational and reasonable managing of natural resources in a nation that does, indeed, have a finite amount of many vital resources is simply good planning, not pandering to a paranoid fringe. Giving profitable tax relief to companies and manufacturers that can both maintain productivity and reduce pollution or waste is a fantastic way to stimulate an economy AND promote a “greener” America. No concessions need be made to such dubious threats as “global warming”, when simple, measurable means like “cleaner, less polluting” measures can work just as well and go MILES further to make the public sympathetic to the effort. To suggest that ONLY the subscribers to “global warming” are behind an American grass-roots movement to protect and preserve American environmental heritage is simply false… look at the nightmare Reagan had to deal with when he appointed James Watt as Sec. of the Interior in 1981. The man made Ron’s life a nightmare for the next two years, simply be making statements that the public took to mean that “no preservation is needed.” Rational managing of the nation's vast and varied resource base is simply good, long-term planning, and certainly doesn’t mean that profitable and measurable use can’t still be made of these resources now.
The effects that this kind of management can have are plainly visible in organization’s efforts like Ducks Unlimited, the American Whitetail Association, and the Roughed Grouse Society… all of which have promoted and PRODUCED vast improvements to the species they promote and the HUNTERS and GUN-OWNERS that hunt those species. No fewer than 11 species of ducks and geese that bordered on endangered only 35 years ago are now thriving and harvestable nation-wide, thanks to DU… and you simply AREN’T going to find a more CONSERVATIVE group of voters than the members of Ducks Unlimited. I dare you to try…
Nothing that Hannity points out as “flawed” in the McCain platform is flawed to me… and nothing he bases his arguments on seems worth the time it took me to write this rebuttal. I'm not even a Republican, either.
That’s why I can’t stand Hannity…
Friday, March 28, 2008
One more thing...
If you haven't seen it, rent "The Kingdom".
How did I go this long and NOT watch this movie? It has a cast that I would have pegged as raging liberals... Jamie Fox, Justin Bateman (sp?), and others whose names escape me... but the premise and direction of the movie goes right to the heart of both the War on Terror and our associations with countries of questionable purpose in the same war... meaning Saudi Arabia and the Royal House of Saud.
This is a good movie... at least what I watched of it so far. I interupted the show to watch "The Mist" with Liz, and I wasn't impressed with the Mist. The ending ruined the whole frigging movie! WHY can't film-makers simply stick to the stories as written? Why change what worked, knowing the change is probably going to flop with the people you are most banking on watching the movie... Stephen King fanatics?
Anyway... spend the money and 2.5 hours on "The Kingdom"... it's worth it.
How did I go this long and NOT watch this movie? It has a cast that I would have pegged as raging liberals... Jamie Fox, Justin Bateman (sp?), and others whose names escape me... but the premise and direction of the movie goes right to the heart of both the War on Terror and our associations with countries of questionable purpose in the same war... meaning Saudi Arabia and the Royal House of Saud.
This is a good movie... at least what I watched of it so far. I interupted the show to watch "The Mist" with Liz, and I wasn't impressed with the Mist. The ending ruined the whole frigging movie! WHY can't film-makers simply stick to the stories as written? Why change what worked, knowing the change is probably going to flop with the people you are most banking on watching the movie... Stephen King fanatics?
Anyway... spend the money and 2.5 hours on "The Kingdom"... it's worth it.
Not conservative... just rational
I still detest the term "conservative" to describe my particular brand of politics. I am, in no way, shape or form, opposed to change in mainstream American politics or Federal policy, as long as the change is preceded by rational and reasonable debate and discussion from ALL parties.
I am the first to admit that the DNP has alienated me to a large degree by ignoring (or flatly refusing to listen to) party members who share my views on morals and ethics, while demanding my support for policies and platforms that out-right contradict my personal views. My saving grace here isn't the Party itself, but the American system of democratic process, which allows me to exercise my free will in any general election, regardless of affiliation or registration.
But, to repeat what I have said numerous times, the GOP shares a level of hypocrisy with the DNP. To scream "less taxes", but to spend beyond our means in specific areas of government each and every administration since Hoover is as silly as anything the Dems are shouting, isn't it? Is there really a difference if an administration puts the government in the "red" with programs like Head Start or Food Stamps and one that does the same with programs like the ill-fated B-1 or a non-functioning fence along the US-Mexican border? For every Republican President that you can name in the 20th Century that was STRONG on defense, I can find one that was WEAK (and Bush/Cheney is at the top of that list, believe me)... and the same can be said for CICs from the other side of the AISLE (that's for Jambo). Clinton neglected the military, but FDR fought tooth and nail against Republicans to BUILD a real military from the ashes that Hoover left him... with every bit as real a threat on the horizon as Clinton should have seen looming.
While I understand Ryan's position on social justice from the Government's point of view, I still feel that the Federal Government of as vast and viable an economic and ethical society as the USA DOES have a responsibility toward the welfare of all its citizens, regardless of means and ability. This responsibility grows in areas that would "free" citizens from actual or perceived handicaps due to regional, racial, economical or physical restraints... i.e. EDUCATION. That any high school graduate needs to determine the course of his or her post-secondary education based solely on the cost of higher education is criminal in my eyes. In this land, built on the premise of "opportunity for all", the fact that a family or individual needs to enroll their University-qualified student in a local technical college because they make too much to qualify for grants but not enough to pay the $65,000 a year that Penn State, UW Madison or Ole Miss is charging PER YEAR is unconscionable. The single, largest factor in US success economically, militarily, politically and socially over the last 50 years is the level of education this nation provides at a collegiate level. We are losing that edge, and rapidly.
So, no change in voter registration for me yet... but you can still hope, I guess.
I am the first to admit that the DNP has alienated me to a large degree by ignoring (or flatly refusing to listen to) party members who share my views on morals and ethics, while demanding my support for policies and platforms that out-right contradict my personal views. My saving grace here isn't the Party itself, but the American system of democratic process, which allows me to exercise my free will in any general election, regardless of affiliation or registration.
But, to repeat what I have said numerous times, the GOP shares a level of hypocrisy with the DNP. To scream "less taxes", but to spend beyond our means in specific areas of government each and every administration since Hoover is as silly as anything the Dems are shouting, isn't it? Is there really a difference if an administration puts the government in the "red" with programs like Head Start or Food Stamps and one that does the same with programs like the ill-fated B-1 or a non-functioning fence along the US-Mexican border? For every Republican President that you can name in the 20th Century that was STRONG on defense, I can find one that was WEAK (and Bush/Cheney is at the top of that list, believe me)... and the same can be said for CICs from the other side of the AISLE (that's for Jambo). Clinton neglected the military, but FDR fought tooth and nail against Republicans to BUILD a real military from the ashes that Hoover left him... with every bit as real a threat on the horizon as Clinton should have seen looming.
While I understand Ryan's position on social justice from the Government's point of view, I still feel that the Federal Government of as vast and viable an economic and ethical society as the USA DOES have a responsibility toward the welfare of all its citizens, regardless of means and ability. This responsibility grows in areas that would "free" citizens from actual or perceived handicaps due to regional, racial, economical or physical restraints... i.e. EDUCATION. That any high school graduate needs to determine the course of his or her post-secondary education based solely on the cost of higher education is criminal in my eyes. In this land, built on the premise of "opportunity for all", the fact that a family or individual needs to enroll their University-qualified student in a local technical college because they make too much to qualify for grants but not enough to pay the $65,000 a year that Penn State, UW Madison or Ole Miss is charging PER YEAR is unconscionable. The single, largest factor in US success economically, militarily, politically and socially over the last 50 years is the level of education this nation provides at a collegiate level. We are losing that edge, and rapidly.
So, no change in voter registration for me yet... but you can still hope, I guess.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Your text message was correct ...
... those were two good posts Titus. I had forgotten the specifics of Bush's proposal, and it was the first, and only viable solution out there. Namely because it was honest in that "someone" would have to pay in without a return, such as you and me & Jambo, but balanced out with the facts that it would freeze at that amount, let us opt out, and we could invest up to 20% of our income tax free - I'll take that deal too. Good point and I hope someone will bring it to fruition.
About Health Care, that was spot on - the lowest common denominator. In fact a popular conservative host took your exact simile and said, "you want to know what Universal Coverage is like, just consider the DMV except add kidney dialysis."
And that leads to your third point - the complete inability of the GOP to communicate in colorful and impacting ways. Discussing the "type" of coverage instead of the cost, or at least adding them together would be a vast improvment of the argument. I'm convinced that when conservatives both famous and ordinary cry out in the night for another Reagan they miss his ability to communicate. That aspect is the sole skill pushing Obama. No 1st term senator with zero name recognition is a viable candidate for president without an uncanny ability to sway audiences through speak. I've lamented at Bush's in particular (and my party in general) inability to communicate to the American electorate, it is his/the party's greatest failing, no question.
One last thing, actually two - yes, the spell check sucks, not as if that would bother Titus, but it does. Second, if we can agree that universal government ran programs inevitably must play to the lowest common denominator as you aptly pointed out, then we should be able to agree that this is the problem with failing schools. Why not introduce a vaccine into this disease by using competition for those federal dollars. Give parents vouchers that can only be used at accredited institutions. Keep in mind that this is particularly popular in the inner cities and every time it has appeared as a referendum or poll, it does well. Weak schools will either preform or die and our the dollars will follow the child, rather then the other way around.
I sense you're growing quite conservative in your older age Titus (I wrote "er" instead of just "old" as some sort of a mercy killing I might add ... he,he).
Later ....
About Health Care, that was spot on - the lowest common denominator. In fact a popular conservative host took your exact simile and said, "you want to know what Universal Coverage is like, just consider the DMV except add kidney dialysis."
And that leads to your third point - the complete inability of the GOP to communicate in colorful and impacting ways. Discussing the "type" of coverage instead of the cost, or at least adding them together would be a vast improvment of the argument. I'm convinced that when conservatives both famous and ordinary cry out in the night for another Reagan they miss his ability to communicate. That aspect is the sole skill pushing Obama. No 1st term senator with zero name recognition is a viable candidate for president without an uncanny ability to sway audiences through speak. I've lamented at Bush's in particular (and my party in general) inability to communicate to the American electorate, it is his/the party's greatest failing, no question.
One last thing, actually two - yes, the spell check sucks, not as if that would bother Titus, but it does. Second, if we can agree that universal government ran programs inevitably must play to the lowest common denominator as you aptly pointed out, then we should be able to agree that this is the problem with failing schools. Why not introduce a vaccine into this disease by using competition for those federal dollars. Give parents vouchers that can only be used at accredited institutions. Keep in mind that this is particularly popular in the inner cities and every time it has appeared as a referendum or poll, it does well. Weak schools will either preform or die and our the dollars will follow the child, rather then the other way around.
I sense you're growing quite conservative in your older age Titus (I wrote "er" instead of just "old" as some sort of a mercy killing I might add ... he,he).
Later ....
Somewhere on this planet Neal Neimuth is breaking out in hives.
I do not mean to shame anyone or sound holier than thou, but I cannot remain silent on this issue any longer.
Just now I typed guaranty into the computer and the spell checker missed it. It is guarantee. As in I guarantee this is the right way to spell the word.
It's the same with isle. If we were talking geography, isle would be perfectly acceptable and of course, your spell checker will miss it. But the aisle you're referring to is aisle, as in a gap in a row of chairs for people to walk through.
None of us have all the time we'd like when it comes to proof reading. I'm not picking on anyone. But any lurker out there is scratching their head going, "They sound so smart. Why can't they spell?"
I can't live with that.
Just now I typed guaranty into the computer and the spell checker missed it. It is guarantee. As in I guarantee this is the right way to spell the word.
It's the same with isle. If we were talking geography, isle would be perfectly acceptable and of course, your spell checker will miss it. But the aisle you're referring to is aisle, as in a gap in a row of chairs for people to walk through.
None of us have all the time we'd like when it comes to proof reading. I'm not picking on anyone. But any lurker out there is scratching their head going, "They sound so smart. Why can't they spell?"
I can't live with that.
Federal Health Care
I just now realized that I hadn't touched on Ryan's comments about the proposed "universal" health care that Hillary and Obama keep talking about.
Of course, it goes without saying that I am opposed to this sort of policy... but not because of the bureaucracy it would create (and it would be huge) or the cost involved (even bigger)... but because of the simple fact that it CAN'T work!
Americans are being told all the time that they can expect the candidates to provide UNIVERSAL coverage to all Americans... and this could be done (regardless of what Ryan or the rest of the right say)... but it can't be done at the LEVEL of EXCELLENCE that we enjoy today!
This is true by the very definition of the terms UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It would be more than impractical to raise the level of even mediocre health care while insisting that it be funded at a flat, subsidized rate... it is impossible. Thus, ALL health care in such a system is suddenly REDUCED in quality and efficiency to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. This is the unavoidable FACT of universal coverage... and it is never mentioned AT ALL!!!
If the GOP were to take to example of one F.Ryan and simply piss and moan about the COST of universal coverage, or the size of the bureaucracy that would be created... "John Q Liberal" isn't going to give a rat's dirty ass about the arguments! They don't care about government cost or the number of bean-counters on the payroll at the Department of Health and Human Services... they want to be able to take their children to the doctor's office REGARDLESS of whether they have the visit covered by insurance or not.
If the GOP were SMART... they'd take my advice:
Use ANY rural American county free clinic as an example... long lines and reams of paperwork (with all necessary Form 1040 and Social Service documentation) ready for submission, longer waits on cheap plastic benches, rude and surly RNs and LPNs (if you're lucky) who are making the bare minimum of the industry standard salary, and a cursory examination and diagnosis at best... with an attending physician available for only 1 in every 55 patients through the door. This is the AVERAGE you can expect from any one of the hundreds of thousands of state and county free clinics already operating in the US.
THEN assure America that THIS is what they can expect from EVERY emergency room, surgery suite, doctor's office and hospital IN THE NATION. A perfect parallel would be to turn ever ER and hospital into a state-run DMV office.
This isn't worst-case scenario stuff, here... it is undeniable, historical FACT that can be demonstrated and substantiated hundreds of times over, with both examples in foreign countries and RIGHT HERE IN THE US!
Do you see my point? THIS is the GOP dropping the ball AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN! Stop focusing on the abstract responses like "who is paying for it?" and "who will run it?"... the 40 million uninsured Americans in this nation DON'T CARE about that... they can't pay for their OWN coverage, so what good is complaining about the lack of money in the system going to make?
The Dems are focusing their criticism of the GOP and Bush on TANGIBLE failings in the economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, US foreign policy, a health care coverage crisis, et al. Why would the GOP respond to these criticisms with ABSTRACT concepts of long-term cost and a greater number of government lackies?
I agree that there is no substance to what the Dems are selling... but the conservative response is just as non-existent. Can SOMEONE in the GOP inner-circle (or kabal, or whatever they use) PLEASE put a couple of planners and a think-tank or two on the payroll and GET SOME ANSWERS in the public eye for questions about how to insure 40 million WORKING and LEGAL US citizens? Or is there some grand strategy that I am not aware of that requires the GOP to ASSIST the Dems in their efforts to take back the White House and Congress?
Sheesh.....
Of course, it goes without saying that I am opposed to this sort of policy... but not because of the bureaucracy it would create (and it would be huge) or the cost involved (even bigger)... but because of the simple fact that it CAN'T work!
Americans are being told all the time that they can expect the candidates to provide UNIVERSAL coverage to all Americans... and this could be done (regardless of what Ryan or the rest of the right say)... but it can't be done at the LEVEL of EXCELLENCE that we enjoy today!
This is true by the very definition of the terms UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It would be more than impractical to raise the level of even mediocre health care while insisting that it be funded at a flat, subsidized rate... it is impossible. Thus, ALL health care in such a system is suddenly REDUCED in quality and efficiency to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. This is the unavoidable FACT of universal coverage... and it is never mentioned AT ALL!!!
If the GOP were to take to example of one F.Ryan and simply piss and moan about the COST of universal coverage, or the size of the bureaucracy that would be created... "John Q Liberal" isn't going to give a rat's dirty ass about the arguments! They don't care about government cost or the number of bean-counters on the payroll at the Department of Health and Human Services... they want to be able to take their children to the doctor's office REGARDLESS of whether they have the visit covered by insurance or not.
If the GOP were SMART... they'd take my advice:
Use ANY rural American county free clinic as an example... long lines and reams of paperwork (with all necessary Form 1040 and Social Service documentation) ready for submission, longer waits on cheap plastic benches, rude and surly RNs and LPNs (if you're lucky) who are making the bare minimum of the industry standard salary, and a cursory examination and diagnosis at best... with an attending physician available for only 1 in every 55 patients through the door. This is the AVERAGE you can expect from any one of the hundreds of thousands of state and county free clinics already operating in the US.
THEN assure America that THIS is what they can expect from EVERY emergency room, surgery suite, doctor's office and hospital IN THE NATION. A perfect parallel would be to turn ever ER and hospital into a state-run DMV office.
This isn't worst-case scenario stuff, here... it is undeniable, historical FACT that can be demonstrated and substantiated hundreds of times over, with both examples in foreign countries and RIGHT HERE IN THE US!
Do you see my point? THIS is the GOP dropping the ball AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN! Stop focusing on the abstract responses like "who is paying for it?" and "who will run it?"... the 40 million uninsured Americans in this nation DON'T CARE about that... they can't pay for their OWN coverage, so what good is complaining about the lack of money in the system going to make?
The Dems are focusing their criticism of the GOP and Bush on TANGIBLE failings in the economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, US foreign policy, a health care coverage crisis, et al. Why would the GOP respond to these criticisms with ABSTRACT concepts of long-term cost and a greater number of government lackies?
I agree that there is no substance to what the Dems are selling... but the conservative response is just as non-existent. Can SOMEONE in the GOP inner-circle (or kabal, or whatever they use) PLEASE put a couple of planners and a think-tank or two on the payroll and GET SOME ANSWERS in the public eye for questions about how to insure 40 million WORKING and LEGAL US citizens? Or is there some grand strategy that I am not aware of that requires the GOP to ASSIST the Dems in their efforts to take back the White House and Congress?
Sheesh.....
Now, Social Security... *sigh*
This is a sticky topic... and not one we have covered here in the Bund (online version), but I think I have made my position clear in the old "thread" version. None the less, we can talk about here, too.
First thing first, though...
I think you made some errors in how you summarized the use of SocSec funds by the Federal Government. I'm not picking a fight, or saying that the jist of your post is wrong... it isn't wrong at all... but let's be clear for clarity's sake, okay?
Money paid into the General Fund for SSI is used to pay out supplemental revenue for that fiscal period... meaning that money coming is pays money due in the same year (as you pointed out). Loans against the General Fund by the Feds are not as clear-cut as you seem to think, though. Currently (and in all years since 1956) the money coming into the Fund from SSI withholding is greater than that going out in benefits, and the surplus is placed into non-marketable Government bonds with an average yield of less than 4%. THAT money is then available to the Feds for use in deficit spending projects (meaning ANY spending that isn't already paid for... not "New Deal" public works projects that might pop into mind). You can see all this for yourself HERE.
It was my understanding that when the GOP suggested alternative investment possibilities for the SSI surplus back in '96, they wanted to distribute some of the funds to market-based accounts, rather than simple Government bonds. As we discussed on numerous occasions at work and your patio (at least that's were I recall them), this was a half-assed solution at best. I always felt the "partial" use of market-based accounts was to ensure at least SOME availability of money to the Feds through the same low-interest bonds that are currently used, while the Republicans called it a "safety net" in the event of major market changes (something on the order of October, 1929).
If the market-based funds could return a conservative 12% annually, but only 20% of General Fund income was going into them, then the average return on the General Fund for a year would go from 4% to 6.2%... and that's not such a great fix, is it?
However, even if the WHOLE amount of the annual withholding income for the Fund went into market-driven accounts, the 12-18% return that could be realized wouldn't fix the problem in the long-term. There are simply too many Baby-Boomers out there facing retirement with no alternative plans outside of SSI. As you stated, the increase would have to be measured in orders of magnitude, not simple percentages.
BUT, I still feel that if the use of market-driven accounts was coupled with the ability of younger Americans to "opt-out" of the system by taking a Government-sponsored opportunity to INCREASE there pre-tax amount available for personal retirement accounts (IRAs and 401k plans) while continuing to pay their CURRENT level of SSI payments to maintain the system as it stands now (meaning those who are depending on the SSI income within the next 10 years... not maintaining the status quo), we'd see the beginnings of a solution to the crisis.
THIS was the Bush alternative to the GOP plan of the mid-90s, and the one I think is still viable. However, Bush failed to counter the Dems campaign to make him look bad in the eyes of older, Baby-Boomer-age Americans who are dependant on the SSI benefits as they understood them to exist. This is NOT the privatization that the Dems pushed so hard to retirees... it is simply smarter investing of General Fund's surplus withholding. I understand that (and I'm a Democrat)... but Bush didn't try very hard to make the public see it that way, did he?
I am perfectly willing to forgo my $1029 (in adjusted dollars) a month at age 67.5 for the ability to invest (tax-free) and additional 5 to 7% of my GROSS income in a personal retirement plan. This ability to personally invest 1/5 of my gross income in a retirement account would ALSO constitute a substantial tax reduction (under the current system) because the IRA/401k is still seen as money in MY pocket... not the Feds. Even a middle-of-the-road mutual fund will return 8 to 14% annually over the life of a fund... with higher-risk funds returning as much as 20 to 27% annually. Who WOULDN'T take that kind of return, if they knew they had 20 to 40 years to build on the account (which I still do, unfortunately).
This is simple math, really... knowing I have 20+ years left to invest, and putting the max (14%) in now, I can still (assuming no previous investments) plan on having between $300,000 and $480,000 by the time I'm 67.5. If my maximum contribution goes to 20%... Liz and I will have more than $1.7 million in available funds that can be distributed at age 67.5... which would mean that Liz and I would be paying TAXES on an annual retirement income of $55,000 EACH for the last 10 years of our statistical lives.
Where is the downside to THAT formula for the Feds?
This isn't an issue of ignorance on the Democratic side of the isle... it is pure partisan politics. Fighting this reform is serving no other purpose than to ensure that the GOP doesn't keep control of the White House past '08. THIS is the result of 1% of the Democratic Party controlling 100% of the Party's position platform.
And THIS is what is going to cripple the Democratic National Party for the next 10 to 15 years.
First thing first, though...
I think you made some errors in how you summarized the use of SocSec funds by the Federal Government. I'm not picking a fight, or saying that the jist of your post is wrong... it isn't wrong at all... but let's be clear for clarity's sake, okay?
Money paid into the General Fund for SSI is used to pay out supplemental revenue for that fiscal period... meaning that money coming is pays money due in the same year (as you pointed out). Loans against the General Fund by the Feds are not as clear-cut as you seem to think, though. Currently (and in all years since 1956) the money coming into the Fund from SSI withholding is greater than that going out in benefits, and the surplus is placed into non-marketable Government bonds with an average yield of less than 4%. THAT money is then available to the Feds for use in deficit spending projects (meaning ANY spending that isn't already paid for... not "New Deal" public works projects that might pop into mind). You can see all this for yourself HERE.
It was my understanding that when the GOP suggested alternative investment possibilities for the SSI surplus back in '96, they wanted to distribute some of the funds to market-based accounts, rather than simple Government bonds. As we discussed on numerous occasions at work and your patio (at least that's were I recall them), this was a half-assed solution at best. I always felt the "partial" use of market-based accounts was to ensure at least SOME availability of money to the Feds through the same low-interest bonds that are currently used, while the Republicans called it a "safety net" in the event of major market changes (something on the order of October, 1929).
If the market-based funds could return a conservative 12% annually, but only 20% of General Fund income was going into them, then the average return on the General Fund for a year would go from 4% to 6.2%... and that's not such a great fix, is it?
However, even if the WHOLE amount of the annual withholding income for the Fund went into market-driven accounts, the 12-18% return that could be realized wouldn't fix the problem in the long-term. There are simply too many Baby-Boomers out there facing retirement with no alternative plans outside of SSI. As you stated, the increase would have to be measured in orders of magnitude, not simple percentages.
BUT, I still feel that if the use of market-driven accounts was coupled with the ability of younger Americans to "opt-out" of the system by taking a Government-sponsored opportunity to INCREASE there pre-tax amount available for personal retirement accounts (IRAs and 401k plans) while continuing to pay their CURRENT level of SSI payments to maintain the system as it stands now (meaning those who are depending on the SSI income within the next 10 years... not maintaining the status quo), we'd see the beginnings of a solution to the crisis.
THIS was the Bush alternative to the GOP plan of the mid-90s, and the one I think is still viable. However, Bush failed to counter the Dems campaign to make him look bad in the eyes of older, Baby-Boomer-age Americans who are dependant on the SSI benefits as they understood them to exist. This is NOT the privatization that the Dems pushed so hard to retirees... it is simply smarter investing of General Fund's surplus withholding. I understand that (and I'm a Democrat)... but Bush didn't try very hard to make the public see it that way, did he?
I am perfectly willing to forgo my $1029 (in adjusted dollars) a month at age 67.5 for the ability to invest (tax-free) and additional 5 to 7% of my GROSS income in a personal retirement plan. This ability to personally invest 1/5 of my gross income in a retirement account would ALSO constitute a substantial tax reduction (under the current system) because the IRA/401k is still seen as money in MY pocket... not the Feds. Even a middle-of-the-road mutual fund will return 8 to 14% annually over the life of a fund... with higher-risk funds returning as much as 20 to 27% annually. Who WOULDN'T take that kind of return, if they knew they had 20 to 40 years to build on the account (which I still do, unfortunately).
This is simple math, really... knowing I have 20+ years left to invest, and putting the max (14%) in now, I can still (assuming no previous investments) plan on having between $300,000 and $480,000 by the time I'm 67.5. If my maximum contribution goes to 20%... Liz and I will have more than $1.7 million in available funds that can be distributed at age 67.5... which would mean that Liz and I would be paying TAXES on an annual retirement income of $55,000 EACH for the last 10 years of our statistical lives.
Where is the downside to THAT formula for the Feds?
This isn't an issue of ignorance on the Democratic side of the isle... it is pure partisan politics. Fighting this reform is serving no other purpose than to ensure that the GOP doesn't keep control of the White House past '08. THIS is the result of 1% of the Democratic Party controlling 100% of the Party's position platform.
And THIS is what is going to cripple the Democratic National Party for the next 10 to 15 years.
You want "third rail"... try this...
I'll get to Soc-Sec, but first, I wanted to share this little tidbit.
As I have said recently, the US Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments for the case called DC v Heller, which concerns DC's flat out ban on the possession of a functioning firearm within the District limits for anyone NOT an active-duty law enforcement officer.
This is history unfolding before our eyes, people... at no time in our nation's history has the Court faced a case that would test the meaning and intentions of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (at least not where both sides of the case were heard). 47 briefs in support of the Circuit Court determination that the DC gun ban was un-Constitutional were filed with the court, and 20 against it.
Obviously, I haven't finished them ALL yet... but I will. The one I did just read was the amicus brief filed by 31 States and their respective AGs in defense of the individual right to keep and bear arms (called the "amici States", and available for reading HERE).
It's long... 75+ pages (I printed mine at work... hehe)... but only about 7 pages in, one of the biggest sections of the brief begins with a REBUTTAL of the official position of the Bush Administration's position in the arguments.
That's right, the Administration has recommended that the case be referred BACK t the lower Court (the same Court that determined the ban un-Constitutional, mind you) for FURTHER REVIEW of its findings! What does that tell YOU?
It tells ME that the Bush White House is hoping for a different outcome of the case when the 2nd Circuit Court hears the case again... and that means that the White House WANTS the ban left in place. What other possible conclusion can I draw from the evidence? Bush WANTS the ban declared "Constitutional" and must feel that the Second Amendment is a collective right protection, and NOT an individual right guaranty. At best, he must feel the District of Columbia, and by extension ANY municipality or State, has the RIGHT to supersede the Second Amendment whenever it feels the need.
This isn't opinion, people... read the brief. George W. Bush appointed this guy AG, and HE determined the course of the USAG brief to the Supreme Court... no one else. I haven't heard Bush refuting the position, or distancing himself from yet another example of BAD APPOINTMENTS in his Cabinet... so I conclude that he, too, feels the ban is "okay".
I'm not listening to any more CRAP about how McCain "waffles" between liberal and conservative positions at will... not when Bush is far more guilty of it as President of the United States AND claims to be a Texan!
As I have said recently, the US Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments for the case called DC v Heller, which concerns DC's flat out ban on the possession of a functioning firearm within the District limits for anyone NOT an active-duty law enforcement officer.
This is history unfolding before our eyes, people... at no time in our nation's history has the Court faced a case that would test the meaning and intentions of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (at least not where both sides of the case were heard). 47 briefs in support of the Circuit Court determination that the DC gun ban was un-Constitutional were filed with the court, and 20 against it.
Obviously, I haven't finished them ALL yet... but I will. The one I did just read was the amicus brief filed by 31 States and their respective AGs in defense of the individual right to keep and bear arms (called the "amici States", and available for reading HERE).
It's long... 75+ pages (I printed mine at work... hehe)... but only about 7 pages in, one of the biggest sections of the brief begins with a REBUTTAL of the official position of the Bush Administration's position in the arguments.
That's right, the Administration has recommended that the case be referred BACK t the lower Court (the same Court that determined the ban un-Constitutional, mind you) for FURTHER REVIEW of its findings! What does that tell YOU?
It tells ME that the Bush White House is hoping for a different outcome of the case when the 2nd Circuit Court hears the case again... and that means that the White House WANTS the ban left in place. What other possible conclusion can I draw from the evidence? Bush WANTS the ban declared "Constitutional" and must feel that the Second Amendment is a collective right protection, and NOT an individual right guaranty. At best, he must feel the District of Columbia, and by extension ANY municipality or State, has the RIGHT to supersede the Second Amendment whenever it feels the need.
This isn't opinion, people... read the brief. George W. Bush appointed this guy AG, and HE determined the course of the USAG brief to the Supreme Court... no one else. I haven't heard Bush refuting the position, or distancing himself from yet another example of BAD APPOINTMENTS in his Cabinet... so I conclude that he, too, feels the ban is "okay".
I'm not listening to any more CRAP about how McCain "waffles" between liberal and conservative positions at will... not when Bush is far more guilty of it as President of the United States AND claims to be a Texan!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The Third Rail of American Politics ...
If ever there was an example that the conservative ideology of less government interventionism in the private responsabilities of citizens is a preferable government practice then that of quasi-socialism, it is in the form of Social Security. It is a scam of almost incomprehensible proportions. It was revealed during congressional testimony this week that this government mandated retirement plan, that I can not opt out of, will be bust as of 2041. Further in this demonstration that these probably well intentioned social nets of primarily FDR and Johnson (Bush via prescription drugs) are doomed to fail is in Medicare, which will go bust as of 2017. Our total social liabilities - and these are programs already on the books mind you, forget Sterns bail outs and the lot- went from 20 trillion in the year 2000 to 53 trillion in 2006. Going at that clip we are nearly tripling our social expenditures (that's minus the war and all military spending I might add) every 6 years. It is simply unsustainable. Just to make these two solvent past the bust dates we would have to increase Medicare & Social Security taxes by a combined 148%.
Now lets look at what Social Security was originally intended for. Born out of the fears of the Great Depression Social Security was supposed to be monies held for you by the government to be there just in case you made it to 65 years of age. Keep in mind that at its inception the average life span of the American male (primarily the sole intended worker in those days) was just under 63. This of course means that government projections concluded that the majority of participants wouldn't even tap in to what was paid in, except for the few years that a spouse outlived him. The average life expectancy of the American male in the US as of today is 76, women are given 79. Add to that, that the government never quote, "set aside" these contributions at all. It was put into the general fund and spent. WAIT, it gets better. Now, as the first set of Social Security (hence forth referred to as Soc-Sec) contributors begin to hit 65, what happens? The government has on the books that we owe X amount of dollars to John Q Contributor so they start using the money they're taking from the current "contributors", and paying out the monies owed to that elder generation. This sets up the vicious cycle in which the actual dollars you send in, you never see. They just record what you paid in and funnel out your money to the retirees of whom they have a record of owing right then. Get the program now? You're not having your money squirreled away for 65, your paying out the benefits owed to the generation before you and hoping that some young bucks will come along and pay the monies owed you via the record of your contributions. Like I said, a scam. In 1954 it took 35 people to pay out the Soc Sec benefits of one retiree. That means the expense of repaying that man his owed contributions was spread amongst 35 tax payers. By 1980 it had dropped to 15. Currently its 7. The problem arrives with the baby boomer generation. When they fully retire there's simply going to be more retirees then there are worker bees to pay them out. Technically we start running a deficit long before 2041, but we can pay out with the available coffers until then. Oh, and before that magic year the expense will have to be spread over only two people.
Now, if we are all in agreeance that socialized medicine is not the right answer for the American health care system, then can we not all agree that socialized retirement is not the answer for the American retirement community? Put simply, FDR, while a stud on the war no question, was wrong about Social Security. I don't question his intentions, but one thing is certain, if you send money to Washington they'll do a lot of things with it but NONE of it will include saving it for you.
But what to do now? How to we break the cycle? We owe the generation we're paying now the money they dutifully paid in. It's the quintessential clusterf***. There must be a private sector answer, and one thing is for sure - we've got to get those contributions out of the hands of DC.
(PS> I got my numbers from the congressional testimony on Soc-Sec solvency of just this week, via Glenn Beck's show - I wrote them down as he (& they) went - and he says they'll be available on his website. But check anywhere you want, but you'll find quickly, as I did, the numbers vary only slightly from site to site and they all spell the same type of doom that I've layed out here).
Now lets look at what Social Security was originally intended for. Born out of the fears of the Great Depression Social Security was supposed to be monies held for you by the government to be there just in case you made it to 65 years of age. Keep in mind that at its inception the average life span of the American male (primarily the sole intended worker in those days) was just under 63. This of course means that government projections concluded that the majority of participants wouldn't even tap in to what was paid in, except for the few years that a spouse outlived him. The average life expectancy of the American male in the US as of today is 76, women are given 79. Add to that, that the government never quote, "set aside" these contributions at all. It was put into the general fund and spent. WAIT, it gets better. Now, as the first set of Social Security (hence forth referred to as Soc-Sec) contributors begin to hit 65, what happens? The government has on the books that we owe X amount of dollars to John Q Contributor so they start using the money they're taking from the current "contributors", and paying out the monies owed to that elder generation. This sets up the vicious cycle in which the actual dollars you send in, you never see. They just record what you paid in and funnel out your money to the retirees of whom they have a record of owing right then. Get the program now? You're not having your money squirreled away for 65, your paying out the benefits owed to the generation before you and hoping that some young bucks will come along and pay the monies owed you via the record of your contributions. Like I said, a scam. In 1954 it took 35 people to pay out the Soc Sec benefits of one retiree. That means the expense of repaying that man his owed contributions was spread amongst 35 tax payers. By 1980 it had dropped to 15. Currently its 7. The problem arrives with the baby boomer generation. When they fully retire there's simply going to be more retirees then there are worker bees to pay them out. Technically we start running a deficit long before 2041, but we can pay out with the available coffers until then. Oh, and before that magic year the expense will have to be spread over only two people.
Now, if we are all in agreeance that socialized medicine is not the right answer for the American health care system, then can we not all agree that socialized retirement is not the answer for the American retirement community? Put simply, FDR, while a stud on the war no question, was wrong about Social Security. I don't question his intentions, but one thing is certain, if you send money to Washington they'll do a lot of things with it but NONE of it will include saving it for you.
But what to do now? How to we break the cycle? We owe the generation we're paying now the money they dutifully paid in. It's the quintessential clusterf***. There must be a private sector answer, and one thing is for sure - we've got to get those contributions out of the hands of DC.
(PS> I got my numbers from the congressional testimony on Soc-Sec solvency of just this week, via Glenn Beck's show - I wrote them down as he (& they) went - and he says they'll be available on his website. But check anywhere you want, but you'll find quickly, as I did, the numbers vary only slightly from site to site and they all spell the same type of doom that I've layed out here).
All good by me ...
That all sounds GREAT. Now, this O'Connor isn't the FOX NEWS guy is he? I assume not since you mentioned EWTN rather then FOX which I would be more familiar with. Although, my Grandmother Kelly had EWTN on the telly every second of every day we visited her in Gulfport growing up (which was often) - I suppose she was trying to penetrate our holy underwear via osmosis. Just put up a quick synopsis on who this O'Connor is so I at least know whom I'm meeting. HEY, I just had a great idea: I'll take a picture with him and send it to my Grandmother with his autograph, she'll love it if he's a big star on that network - which means it will take about 8.5 minutes for her to call my aunt, my aunt to call my sister, my sister to call my mother and my mother to call me asking, "DID YOU CONVERT, WHAT IS THIS??" He,he. You think I get the "heathen" jokes because my two best buds are Catholic, consider my poor mother - her mother, 8 siblings,over 30 nieces and nephews and about a dozen great nieces and nephews - all Catholic, as was she until she converted soon after my birth. Come to think of it I may have been baptized Catholic, I'll have to inquire about that.
I'll bring a Book of Mormon, a CD of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and wear a BYU jersey - maybe I'll get out of there still being part of the flock of Smith .... he,he.
I'll bring a Book of Mormon, a CD of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and wear a BYU jersey - maybe I'll get out of there still being part of the flock of Smith .... he,he.
As long as James brought it up...
... I should let you guys know some of what to expect for the "big day".
Initially, Liz had been running with a "theme" that focused on the ethnicity of the union, Irish and Creole. That plan has now been altered...
The "Irish" part has been relegated to the actual service at St Peter's, and doesn't seem to be leaving there anymore. So enjoy it while it lasts... about 90 minutes. She's trying to make the ceremony as "traditional" an Irish event as she can (taking into account that this is an Episcopalian congregation, or "Catholic Lite" as I like to call it) with very little of the formal aspect one thinks of with a wedding. Lots of linen, white and pastel green, spring flowers... you get the idea.
The Creole theme takes over from there. As much New Orleans as my meager checkbook and NEPA can provide, anyway. Purple and gold colors (a combination only James and Liz can REALLY appreciate... and perhaps Jason), lots of Louisiana food, a dance floor on the deck, undoubtedly some Zydeco music (Liz's family nearly ALL hail from south LA originally). Nothing that I am sure the two Katrina refugees reading this blog won't be familar with.
My concerns are mainly that this will be a bit "alien" for most of the locals and what members of my family show up... and that there is the possiblity that the "Creole" side of this wedding (read LIZ) is just a bit too far removed from the real thing to appreciate good Creole cuisine. James knows what I mean... to sup on authentic shrimp etouffee is to come close to knowing the savour of ambrosia, but to have it done badly is to suffer a meal inedible. As much as I would love to serve 30+ people a truly mouthwatering Creole feast in the best of New Orleans style... I do not live anywhere near New Orleans anymore, and vital ingredients may be only available via the internet, or not at all (i.e. crayfish tails, boil, and the dreaded okra). When I think Creole, I think HOT food, but I'm not sure how well that will go over, so it will have to be tame to at least James and my tastes.
However, she is having a BLAST planning this thing out... it can occupy her for HOURS if she lets it, each and every day. That's a good thing, I guess... but the closer we get to the day, the more costly the next change of mind is going to be. Hehe... oh well.
I do think this will be fun... I hope you guys just think of it as 4 or 5 days of fun and relaxation. No worries, no schedules outside of what you set... lots of fun and laughing, and maybe a bit of culture thrown into the mix.
Initially, Liz had been running with a "theme" that focused on the ethnicity of the union, Irish and Creole. That plan has now been altered...
The "Irish" part has been relegated to the actual service at St Peter's, and doesn't seem to be leaving there anymore. So enjoy it while it lasts... about 90 minutes. She's trying to make the ceremony as "traditional" an Irish event as she can (taking into account that this is an Episcopalian congregation, or "Catholic Lite" as I like to call it) with very little of the formal aspect one thinks of with a wedding. Lots of linen, white and pastel green, spring flowers... you get the idea.
The Creole theme takes over from there. As much New Orleans as my meager checkbook and NEPA can provide, anyway. Purple and gold colors (a combination only James and Liz can REALLY appreciate... and perhaps Jason), lots of Louisiana food, a dance floor on the deck, undoubtedly some Zydeco music (Liz's family nearly ALL hail from south LA originally). Nothing that I am sure the two Katrina refugees reading this blog won't be familar with.
My concerns are mainly that this will be a bit "alien" for most of the locals and what members of my family show up... and that there is the possiblity that the "Creole" side of this wedding (read LIZ) is just a bit too far removed from the real thing to appreciate good Creole cuisine. James knows what I mean... to sup on authentic shrimp etouffee is to come close to knowing the savour of ambrosia, but to have it done badly is to suffer a meal inedible. As much as I would love to serve 30+ people a truly mouthwatering Creole feast in the best of New Orleans style... I do not live anywhere near New Orleans anymore, and vital ingredients may be only available via the internet, or not at all (i.e. crayfish tails, boil, and the dreaded okra). When I think Creole, I think HOT food, but I'm not sure how well that will go over, so it will have to be tame to at least James and my tastes.
However, she is having a BLAST planning this thing out... it can occupy her for HOURS if she lets it, each and every day. That's a good thing, I guess... but the closer we get to the day, the more costly the next change of mind is going to be. Hehe... oh well.
I do think this will be fun... I hope you guys just think of it as 4 or 5 days of fun and relaxation. No worries, no schedules outside of what you set... lots of fun and laughing, and maybe a bit of culture thrown into the mix.
Fr. Charles P Connor...
Jambo's hero...
He is the Pastor at St. Peter's Cathedral in Scranton, PA. I know exactly where this is, mainly because it is within spitting distance (as if one would spit in the direction of a cathedral!) of the famous PUB Mick the Lib is dying to get you two in! Google the Cathedral... you'll see his email address, his office hours, etc. If you really want to meet him, we can do that right away... like I said, Mick has plans to get us all loaded at the Banshee on Wed or Thurs of that week... should be fun.
And NO, I'm not opposed to talking about plans here on the site... I just hadn't done it much till now.
He is the Pastor at St. Peter's Cathedral in Scranton, PA. I know exactly where this is, mainly because it is within spitting distance (as if one would spit in the direction of a cathedral!) of the famous PUB Mick the Lib is dying to get you two in! Google the Cathedral... you'll see his email address, his office hours, etc. If you really want to meet him, we can do that right away... like I said, Mick has plans to get us all loaded at the Banshee on Wed or Thurs of that week... should be fun.
And NO, I'm not opposed to talking about plans here on the site... I just hadn't done it much till now.
OK, Space Losers! This is the plan.
For one, the trip to Philly on Monday I guess is ok. As long as I'm not driving life is good. BUT...
I have no idea where Sussquehanna, PA is but I'm taking a stab in guessing it's not too far from Titus' domicile. St. John's parish priest in Sussquehanna just happens to be Fr. Charles Connor of EWTN fame, and my hero. I have to get the man's autograph. There is no debate here, one of you losers is going to drive me to Sussquehanna so I can meet this giant of Catholic history and education. Ryan needs to come, this trip will purge the heathen from him and he'll embrace the Catholic he really is.
Are we not supposed to be discussing wedding planning details on the blog? Is that why I'm getting e-mails? Because I don't check my e-mail often but I'm here daily.
I get Fr. Connor's autograph and Archbishop Lipscombe and I'll be set. Of course, the Pope is in country next month, but that's asking a lot. Even when he was just Cardinal Ratzinger.
I have no idea where Sussquehanna, PA is but I'm taking a stab in guessing it's not too far from Titus' domicile. St. John's parish priest in Sussquehanna just happens to be Fr. Charles Connor of EWTN fame, and my hero. I have to get the man's autograph. There is no debate here, one of you losers is going to drive me to Sussquehanna so I can meet this giant of Catholic history and education. Ryan needs to come, this trip will purge the heathen from him and he'll embrace the Catholic he really is.
Are we not supposed to be discussing wedding planning details on the blog? Is that why I'm getting e-mails? Because I don't check my e-mail often but I'm here daily.
I get Fr. Connor's autograph and Archbishop Lipscombe and I'll be set. Of course, the Pope is in country next month, but that's asking a lot. Even when he was just Cardinal Ratzinger.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I guess that means me ...
... given I'm the only conservative Republican (more of the former then the latter I might add).
First, this was a very astute comment:
We are still pandering to a Communist state, in no way different than every Presidential administration did to the USSR prior to Reagan!!!
Now, in regards to Reagan I can only assume when you say, "WHO was it that defeated communism in the 20th century?" That you were slipping a jab at those who pray at Reagan's alter. On that score let me point out that we always refer to Reagan, and quite appropriately, as defeating the Soviet Union, the evil empire, and so on. I have not, nor have I ever heard any conservative Reaganite claim, he defeated "communism" in total.
Furthermore - every president since 1945 has singled out one (or more with one being the primary) communist regime, and sought to disable it as a threat to the free world, through either hot or cold wars or a failed "getting along" approach (as in Carter). Truman went into Korea to prevent Chinese communism from spreading. No less then three presidents can lay claim to focusing on Vietnam - JFK, Johnson & Nixon (can't remember if Eisenhower sent in "advisers", I think he did) and clearly preventing the spread of communism was the preface of our involvement in that South East Asian country. Post Vietnam the USSR came into particular focus (although we had clearly been engaged in a Cold war since the fall of Berlin if not before), and Carter had the USSR as his communist focal point - although he was inept and focused on getting along rather then confrontation. Then Reagan, also obviously the USSR. What this means is that every president since WWII thru Reagan and into Bush 41 had communism as it primary foe in one form or another, each putting a particular regime, and its dismantlement, as the focus of their time in office (and in Ronnie's defense defeating the USSR along with his allies was far and away a more necessary task versus dealing with China - and I think Thatcher & Pope John Paul would (of) agreed). Not until Bill Clinton took office did the US strategic policy change its focus. Bill took his eye off the ball in terms of confronting communism and its last major vestige - China. The 90's were supposed to be good times, rock and roll Internet billionaire time, no need to bring up communist regimes in the midst of all that, besides the USSR is gone. In fact, why don't we utilize the enormous work force and consumer base that China is and grant them most favored nation status? Now I know both parties are culpable, and Bush has simply maintained the status quo in that regard but let us bare in mind it was a Democrat that for the first time in nearly 50 years took confronting communism as a world-wide epidemic off the strategic table. And I'll further add that only Republicans took confronting the evils of communism (namely embodied in the USSR) seriously in the post Johnson administration era (note I said only Republicans, not all Republicans).
From the literature I read businessmen in China are now joining the communist party in order to make business contacts - how's that for a contradiction? And therein lies what I have dubbed "the policy of hope." It's Glasnost without the balls to back it up. We (embodied in Clinton and Bush 43) are simply hoping that if we do enough business with China that one day they'll wake up and say, "what is this, this communist thing? We like capitalism, look at all my flat screen TV's. Okay everybody, we're done with that communism stuff, silly us, who wants to vote?" It's a dubious approach at best. And now the entire Western world falls under the label of "enabler' of the PRC - the Olympics don't get there on their own.
First, this was a very astute comment:
We are still pandering to a Communist state, in no way different than every Presidential administration did to the USSR prior to Reagan!!!
Now, in regards to Reagan I can only assume when you say, "WHO was it that defeated communism in the 20th century?" That you were slipping a jab at those who pray at Reagan's alter. On that score let me point out that we always refer to Reagan, and quite appropriately, as defeating the Soviet Union, the evil empire, and so on. I have not, nor have I ever heard any conservative Reaganite claim, he defeated "communism" in total.
Furthermore - every president since 1945 has singled out one (or more with one being the primary) communist regime, and sought to disable it as a threat to the free world, through either hot or cold wars or a failed "getting along" approach (as in Carter). Truman went into Korea to prevent Chinese communism from spreading. No less then three presidents can lay claim to focusing on Vietnam - JFK, Johnson & Nixon (can't remember if Eisenhower sent in "advisers", I think he did) and clearly preventing the spread of communism was the preface of our involvement in that South East Asian country. Post Vietnam the USSR came into particular focus (although we had clearly been engaged in a Cold war since the fall of Berlin if not before), and Carter had the USSR as his communist focal point - although he was inept and focused on getting along rather then confrontation. Then Reagan, also obviously the USSR. What this means is that every president since WWII thru Reagan and into Bush 41 had communism as it primary foe in one form or another, each putting a particular regime, and its dismantlement, as the focus of their time in office (and in Ronnie's defense defeating the USSR along with his allies was far and away a more necessary task versus dealing with China - and I think Thatcher & Pope John Paul would (of) agreed). Not until Bill Clinton took office did the US strategic policy change its focus. Bill took his eye off the ball in terms of confronting communism and its last major vestige - China. The 90's were supposed to be good times, rock and roll Internet billionaire time, no need to bring up communist regimes in the midst of all that, besides the USSR is gone. In fact, why don't we utilize the enormous work force and consumer base that China is and grant them most favored nation status? Now I know both parties are culpable, and Bush has simply maintained the status quo in that regard but let us bare in mind it was a Democrat that for the first time in nearly 50 years took confronting communism as a world-wide epidemic off the strategic table. And I'll further add that only Republicans took confronting the evils of communism (namely embodied in the USSR) seriously in the post Johnson administration era (note I said only Republicans, not all Republicans).
From the literature I read businessmen in China are now joining the communist party in order to make business contacts - how's that for a contradiction? And therein lies what I have dubbed "the policy of hope." It's Glasnost without the balls to back it up. We (embodied in Clinton and Bush 43) are simply hoping that if we do enough business with China that one day they'll wake up and say, "what is this, this communist thing? We like capitalism, look at all my flat screen TV's. Okay everybody, we're done with that communism stuff, silly us, who wants to vote?" It's a dubious approach at best. And now the entire Western world falls under the label of "enabler' of the PRC - the Olympics don't get there on their own.
Killing time, now...
It is surprising how perceptive “corporate America” is in limiting my access to web sites such as the Bund. An unfettered ability to browse and post to sites such as this would undoubtedly constitute a rather large amount of payroll and man-hours more productively used somewhere else in the casino.
Lucky for all of you, it is slow here tonight, and I chose to work my team like slaves yesterday and cleared up several hours worth of free time to screw off tonight… hehe.
So, as long as I still have 30 minutes of “quota” time available until the clock strikes midnight, I thought I’d continue to “feed the machine”…
Let’s talk about Taiwan.
Since 1971 and the secret visit by Henry Kissinger to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States has ceased to recognize the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan) as an independent, sovereign nation. In fact, Nixon himself said, during his 1972 visit to China, that there was only “one China, and Taiwan was part of China.” With those words, the majority of countries that had previously supported the ROC’s seat on the Security Council of the UN changed their minds and voted to replace the ROC membership with the membership of the PRC.
Since 1972, the ROC has held multi-party democratic elections every 2 years. The “Chiang” dynasty of Chiang Kei-shek and his son is ancient history, and Taiwan is now fishing for representation of its 22 million people as the Republic of Taiwan in the UN General Assembly.
The US still refuses to recognize this attempt as legitimate because a change in the NAME of the country is one of the “triggers” that China instituted to ensure no cession would occur in Taiwan. In fact, James and I recall days when the toys we played with as children said “Made in Taiwan”… but since the mid-70s, that was replaced with “Made in China” to appease the PRC and avoid any hint of “official” US recognition of the ROC as an independent state.
Why has the US and it’s most “conservative” and “anti-Communist” leaders over the last 35 years (that includes the nearly “divine” Ronald W. Reagan, by the way) STILL pandering to a repressive, Communist regime and refusing to recognize a nation that for 22 years and a WORLD WAR was one of our strongest and staunchest allies? Forget the fact that the PRC and its policy of “One China” is simply the mirror-image of the policy instituted by Chiang in 1949 after the Chinese Civil War (stating that the ROC was the legitimate and legal representative government of the entire nation of China)… and forget that they have now DROPPED that claim and only assert their authority as a representative government of the people living on the island and within a 225 mile zone around the island… forget the fact that since the free elections and democratic reforms instituted by Chiang’s son have eliminated the possibility of incidents like Tiananmen Square from ever happening in Taipei the way they did in Beijing…
We are still pandering to a Communist state, in no way different than every Presidential administration did to the USSR prior to Reagan!!! In fact, they now enjoy the benefit of “Most Favored Nation” status in regards to trade with the US! President Bush hasn’t even been able to give Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, or Belarus the status of MFN, for Pete’s sake… who is more likely to see eye-to-eye with the US, Latvia or PRC? Who is likely to BENEFIT more from a US MFN status, Russia or China? Who will WE benefit more from?
Now, I’ve heard all the talk about how big a market China is for US goods… how much that trade status means to US business in the Pacific… and that is all well and good, I’m sure. Let’s just check some facts (to quote Dennis Miller… ):
Who is China’s BIGGEST supplier of crude oil? Iran
Where is China’s BIGGEST market for ballistic missile technology? North Korea
Who is the loudest voice of dissention in the UN Security Council when it comes to sanctions against rogue states that support terror (Iran and North Korea)? China
What nation still maintains a “functional” stockpile of tactical and strategic chemical and biological weapons and material, and the facilities and technology to produce more on demand? China
Which member of the “nuclear club” that DID NOT sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty now has the largest surplus of fissile material unaccounted for? China
Which “Cold War” enemy of the US now poses the biggest threat to US interests and/or to US allies in the region? China
Which combatant nation of the Korean conflict has NEVER allowed US investigators to visit suspected POW prisons where Americans have been reported to be held since 1956? China
I want to hear again WHO it was that defeated Communism in the 20th Century… and I want to hear it from a conservative Republican…
Lucky for all of you, it is slow here tonight, and I chose to work my team like slaves yesterday and cleared up several hours worth of free time to screw off tonight… hehe.
So, as long as I still have 30 minutes of “quota” time available until the clock strikes midnight, I thought I’d continue to “feed the machine”…
Let’s talk about Taiwan.
Since 1971 and the secret visit by Henry Kissinger to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States has ceased to recognize the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan) as an independent, sovereign nation. In fact, Nixon himself said, during his 1972 visit to China, that there was only “one China, and Taiwan was part of China.” With those words, the majority of countries that had previously supported the ROC’s seat on the Security Council of the UN changed their minds and voted to replace the ROC membership with the membership of the PRC.
Since 1972, the ROC has held multi-party democratic elections every 2 years. The “Chiang” dynasty of Chiang Kei-shek and his son is ancient history, and Taiwan is now fishing for representation of its 22 million people as the Republic of Taiwan in the UN General Assembly.
The US still refuses to recognize this attempt as legitimate because a change in the NAME of the country is one of the “triggers” that China instituted to ensure no cession would occur in Taiwan. In fact, James and I recall days when the toys we played with as children said “Made in Taiwan”… but since the mid-70s, that was replaced with “Made in China” to appease the PRC and avoid any hint of “official” US recognition of the ROC as an independent state.
Why has the US and it’s most “conservative” and “anti-Communist” leaders over the last 35 years (that includes the nearly “divine” Ronald W. Reagan, by the way) STILL pandering to a repressive, Communist regime and refusing to recognize a nation that for 22 years and a WORLD WAR was one of our strongest and staunchest allies? Forget the fact that the PRC and its policy of “One China” is simply the mirror-image of the policy instituted by Chiang in 1949 after the Chinese Civil War (stating that the ROC was the legitimate and legal representative government of the entire nation of China)… and forget that they have now DROPPED that claim and only assert their authority as a representative government of the people living on the island and within a 225 mile zone around the island… forget the fact that since the free elections and democratic reforms instituted by Chiang’s son have eliminated the possibility of incidents like Tiananmen Square from ever happening in Taipei the way they did in Beijing…
We are still pandering to a Communist state, in no way different than every Presidential administration did to the USSR prior to Reagan!!! In fact, they now enjoy the benefit of “Most Favored Nation” status in regards to trade with the US! President Bush hasn’t even been able to give Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, or Belarus the status of MFN, for Pete’s sake… who is more likely to see eye-to-eye with the US, Latvia or PRC? Who is likely to BENEFIT more from a US MFN status, Russia or China? Who will WE benefit more from?
Now, I’ve heard all the talk about how big a market China is for US goods… how much that trade status means to US business in the Pacific… and that is all well and good, I’m sure. Let’s just check some facts (to quote Dennis Miller… ):
Who is China’s BIGGEST supplier of crude oil? Iran
Where is China’s BIGGEST market for ballistic missile technology? North Korea
Who is the loudest voice of dissention in the UN Security Council when it comes to sanctions against rogue states that support terror (Iran and North Korea)? China
What nation still maintains a “functional” stockpile of tactical and strategic chemical and biological weapons and material, and the facilities and technology to produce more on demand? China
Which member of the “nuclear club” that DID NOT sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty now has the largest surplus of fissile material unaccounted for? China
Which “Cold War” enemy of the US now poses the biggest threat to US interests and/or to US allies in the region? China
Which combatant nation of the Korean conflict has NEVER allowed US investigators to visit suspected POW prisons where Americans have been reported to be held since 1956? China
I want to hear again WHO it was that defeated Communism in the 20th Century… and I want to hear it from a conservative Republican…
Bawana? That's the wrong "Indian", smart guy.
What was wrong is the clear inference that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, assuming I thought Beijing was the capital of Taiwan.... my goodness. I reserve such mouth breathing ignorance of the world for the E Channel watching, Obama supporting, pot smoking, Chae shirt wearing, pant drooping, troglodytes that I am constantly subjected to every time I turn on the TV..
At any rate I will demonstrate my unquestionable confidence in my own intellect by protesting this matter no more, and will take comfort in the fact that even without an apologyI am self-assigning you one and accepting it in absentia!
Alright, off to check the emails to see what goodies you've planned for us in PA. Be sure to enlighten me on just why Gettysburg is significant, you know, since I am unfamiliar with 7th grade geography and probably think its some new swanky coffee cafe ....... gay boy.
At any rate I will demonstrate my unquestionable confidence in my own intellect by protesting this matter no more, and will take comfort in the fact that even without an apologyI am self-assigning you one and accepting it in absentia!
Alright, off to check the emails to see what goodies you've planned for us in PA. Be sure to enlighten me on just why Gettysburg is significant, you know, since I am unfamiliar with 7th grade geography and probably think its some new swanky coffee cafe ....... gay boy.
Wow...
Slow down, Bawana!
Why are YOU the only one that can be sarcastic? Taiwan is more than just a "sore spot" with me... I am still upset that WE are the reason they lost their seat on the UN Security Council. Not to mention the fact that I thought YOU supported the position that NO amount of pandering to a regime like the Chinese was acceptable... when did THAT change?
So, forgive me for flexing a little sarcastic whit and more than a little pride in my unquestionably impressive geographic trivial knowledge. I read a connection between Beijing and Taiwan in your post... I was obviously incorrect.
That doesn't make anything I said WRONG, though... does it?
HAHAHAHA!!!
Why are YOU the only one that can be sarcastic? Taiwan is more than just a "sore spot" with me... I am still upset that WE are the reason they lost their seat on the UN Security Council. Not to mention the fact that I thought YOU supported the position that NO amount of pandering to a regime like the Chinese was acceptable... when did THAT change?
So, forgive me for flexing a little sarcastic whit and more than a little pride in my unquestionably impressive geographic trivial knowledge. I read a connection between Beijing and Taiwan in your post... I was obviously incorrect.
That doesn't make anything I said WRONG, though... does it?
HAHAHAHA!!!
Are you serious?
What do you take me for? Aren't I at least 1 of the brighter bulbs you've met in your life? You wrote:
"First of all, Beijing is NOT the capital of Taiwan, Taipei is. Taiwan is the Republic of China, formerly known as Formosa, and has remained independent of mainland China since.."
Really professor? OF COURSE I KNOW THAT! If you had slowed down and researched the story properly you'd know I was referring to the undersecretary of defense (named Ryan coincidentally) whom made it a priority to alert Beijing of the mistake so as not to let it be interpreted in some sort of Cuban missile crisis scenario. And that is because the communist regime has an official "One China" policy which includes Taiwan as a territory. Thus the tension between the US, China and Taiwan given we want the Taiwanese to exercises their independence with a wink and a nod while trying not to publicly offend the Beijing regime.
The text was a J-O-K-E. Meaning Gates would be rolling his eyes murmuring "nice going Don."
SHEEEEEESH! Give me a little credit. And while you're ending your sentences in prepositions, you can "shove" that geography lesson, Cochise
"First of all, Beijing is NOT the capital of Taiwan, Taipei is. Taiwan is the Republic of China, formerly known as Formosa, and has remained independent of mainland China since.."
Really professor? OF COURSE I KNOW THAT! If you had slowed down and researched the story properly you'd know I was referring to the undersecretary of defense (named Ryan coincidentally) whom made it a priority to alert Beijing of the mistake so as not to let it be interpreted in some sort of Cuban missile crisis scenario. And that is because the communist regime has an official "One China" policy which includes Taiwan as a territory. Thus the tension between the US, China and Taiwan given we want the Taiwanese to exercises their independence with a wink and a nod while trying not to publicly offend the Beijing regime.
The text was a J-O-K-E. Meaning Gates would be rolling his eyes murmuring "nice going Don."
SHEEEEEESH! Give me a little credit. And while you're ending your sentences in prepositions, you can "shove" that geography lesson, Cochise
Taiwan and Rummy
A couple of points on Ryan’s previous posts…
First of all, Beijing is NOT the capital of Taiwan, Taipei is. Taiwan is the Republic of China, formerly known as Formosa, and has remained independent of mainland China since it was liberated from the Imperial Japanese Army in 1945. We have as many as 278 defense contracts with the Taiwanese military and government agencies, and it was with one of these that the mistake you referred to happened.
Beijing is the capital of the People’s Republic of China… mainland China, in other words. We currently have no defense contracts with the PRC (as they are still Commies… no matter what Nixon, Clinton or Bush might say), so we wouldn’t even send them the helicopter batteries, let alone nuclear triggers.
Now that the geography lesson is over, I can rant about Rummy again. Donald Rumsfeld is the SINGLE biggest mistake that George W. Bush has made in his time as President. I can’t imagine another cabinet appointment that has cost the US more in recent history… and that includes Robert McNamara and Harold Brown (two of the worst SoD I can think of in recent memory).
Rummy had a long and distinguished political career, having had his first White House appointment during the Nixon Administration, and serving all Republican Presidents since (that’s five, all told). His association with both the Bush presidencies is well documented, and I don’t doubt that the “friendship” that was so often discussed by G.W. Bush is real and heart-felt.
However, any man that is placed into the highest military command position outside of the Oval Office itself that FORGETS the primary importance of MANPOWER and good, old-fashioned INFANTRY force planning is so blatantly ignorant of military doctrine and strategy as to very nearly require an indictment. I have heard conservative pundits rip on the status of the US military after the Clinton years time and time again… and with good cause. But if the shoe fit on William Cohen, then it was tailor-made for Don Rumsfeld.
All this ranting begs the question: “Why is Gates sending text messages to Rumsfeld?” I can’t possibly imagine what advice Rummy could give that would be worth the time it took to read the reply! Short of asking Rummy, “Hey, we’ve come up a few crates short on the nuclear trigger tally… can you tell us where you left them?” what could he hope to learn? I, for one, do NOT want Rummy giving ANYONE in the White House any more advice as to how to handle national security or defense issues.
First of all, Beijing is NOT the capital of Taiwan, Taipei is. Taiwan is the Republic of China, formerly known as Formosa, and has remained independent of mainland China since it was liberated from the Imperial Japanese Army in 1945. We have as many as 278 defense contracts with the Taiwanese military and government agencies, and it was with one of these that the mistake you referred to happened.
Beijing is the capital of the People’s Republic of China… mainland China, in other words. We currently have no defense contracts with the PRC (as they are still Commies… no matter what Nixon, Clinton or Bush might say), so we wouldn’t even send them the helicopter batteries, let alone nuclear triggers.
Now that the geography lesson is over, I can rant about Rummy again. Donald Rumsfeld is the SINGLE biggest mistake that George W. Bush has made in his time as President. I can’t imagine another cabinet appointment that has cost the US more in recent history… and that includes Robert McNamara and Harold Brown (two of the worst SoD I can think of in recent memory).
Rummy had a long and distinguished political career, having had his first White House appointment during the Nixon Administration, and serving all Republican Presidents since (that’s five, all told). His association with both the Bush presidencies is well documented, and I don’t doubt that the “friendship” that was so often discussed by G.W. Bush is real and heart-felt.
However, any man that is placed into the highest military command position outside of the Oval Office itself that FORGETS the primary importance of MANPOWER and good, old-fashioned INFANTRY force planning is so blatantly ignorant of military doctrine and strategy as to very nearly require an indictment. I have heard conservative pundits rip on the status of the US military after the Clinton years time and time again… and with good cause. But if the shoe fit on William Cohen, then it was tailor-made for Don Rumsfeld.
All this ranting begs the question: “Why is Gates sending text messages to Rumsfeld?” I can’t possibly imagine what advice Rummy could give that would be worth the time it took to read the reply! Short of asking Rummy, “Hey, we’ve come up a few crates short on the nuclear trigger tally… can you tell us where you left them?” what could he hope to learn? I, for one, do NOT want Rummy giving ANYONE in the White House any more advice as to how to handle national security or defense issues.
Now lets see, where did I set those ICBM's?
So the Pentagon announces today that they "accidentally" sent nuclear (or Nucleeer as dubya says) centrifuges, that can be loaded onto ICBM's no less, to Taiwan. Okay, but the kicker is that they've been there for two years! They were sent on accident instead of the requested industrial batteries. When I broke into the business at Boomtown as a 21 year old security guard we were required to check the bathrooms (for passed out or elderly patrons in distress) every hour, on the hour and you're telling me that nuclear centrifuges don't get inventory checks on a regular basis?
Can you imagine that phone call to Beijing? I mean what are they going to say - "Ummm, you know how sometimes when you order Chinese take out they forget your pot stickers? Well ...."
Not to mention Gates texting Rummy - "WTF man???!"
Can you imagine that phone call to Beijing? I mean what are they going to say - "Ummm, you know how sometimes when you order Chinese take out they forget your pot stickers? Well ...."
Not to mention Gates texting Rummy - "WTF man???!"
From Buchanan and Douglas ...
... whom had 4 and 6 hour one on one interchanges to this - Moderator: "Please raise your hand if you believe in evolution." This was during the MSNBC GOP debate and was meant to expose any of those insidious creationists whom believe in God. A show of hands? Disgraceful sophomoric tripe.
First a few words about Miller - he is one of my favorite comedians and I'll tell you why. One, you had damn well better read more then one book (fortunately I've read two, he,he) and been alert in more then one history class if you intend to get his jokes. He's probably the most prolific story teller and simile inducer that has ever daned the American comedic stage. Secondly, his ideological transformation. I've seen him interviewed many a time and he speaks of having been a died in the wool liberal, and then two things happened - he became a father and Giuliani became mayor. He watched as the city of New York was transformed from a punch line dripping with gangsters and homeless squidgy men, to its former glory of a shining big city. He recalled how his friends like Tim Robbins and Susan Surandon referred to Rudy as a Nazi. And Miller both knowing history and realizing the positive Giuliani effect decided his party, the Democrat Party, was going off the deep end and he slowly migrated over. And I'm sure it has cost him plenty professionally speaking. How could he continue to make his way in that industry after endorsing McCain in 2000, Bush in 2004 and Giuliani in 2008? Not to mention the unforgivable sin of having a regular segment on The OReilly Factor entitled "Miller Time." After his ill fated stint on Monday Night football he morphed over to a big sports talk show, and that's his main gig now. Apparently he's a big football fan. He still does HBO hour stand up shows here and there and his most recent was here in Vegas, I urge you to catch it if you can. At any rate, when he defended Stockdale is when I first became a fan. I didn't watch the live SNL defense but he repeated it verbatim only a few nights later on Leno, and I mean you could tell he was fit to be tied over their treatment of a bonified war hero. He had much the same feeling in 2000 for McCain. On Conan O'Brian he said, "Think about being a POW for 5 years for a second ... I think John ought to pull up to the Republican convention on a Harley in a leather jacket, flip everybody the bird and say, 'screw you people, you owe me.'" Crowd went nuts.
And that leads into my other sentiment concerning the Stockdales and McCain's of our nation and those who would poke fun. I think that the "protesting" baby boomers (and this is generalizing I realize that), the 'hell no we won't go" sit-in, love-in flower child crowd basically fall into two camps as of 2008. In the one you have those for whom they are still glowingly proud of their protest years. They have pony tails (even while going bald on top), wear lots of muted colors and brown sandals, and are the base of the DNC. Then you have those, like Miller, whom realize the grave disservice they and their peers did to the actual servicemen during Vietnam. Put simply, they feel guilty. Spitting on returning troops, being called "baby killers" and having to listen to Kerry compare them to barbarians from centuries past, it all turns their stomach as they look back on it and they now get very angry and have zero patience for those whom would poke fun at people like Stockdale. They realize the only way to make "good" on their youthful mistreatment of Vietnam soldiers is to give them the respect they deserve in the here and now, and to their credit they do. Coincidentally they've usually changed their party registration. I know that this doesn't account for people like Senator Webb, but it accounts for enough that it was worth my mentioning.
And on a side note Letterman has a regular segment - I saw it on Special Report With Brit Hume - entitled "John McCain, He's Really Old." They speak of his desire to bring integrity to the oval office just like his mentor, Thomas Jefferson. And you can see where they're going from there. For at least a moment they should consider something. Just this week Hillary blatantly lied about landing and running under sniper fire in Tusla Bosnia in 1996, even CBS had to expose that, their reporters were on that plane and the video shows it was a normal ceremonial meet and greet. All I could picture was John McCain listening to her describe her "heroing" event and saying, "uh huh." With much the same look and attitude that Malarchy had when the new West Pointer mentioned that he and Webb dodged a few morters on the way in.
****
Our current debate formats are a joke, and purposely so. Debates, and the campaign in general come to think of it, are now designed to prevent gaffs rather then inform us of the candidate. Simply, "no mistakes" are the debate marching orders rather then having a genuine discussion. The closest we've had in recent memory was the VP debate between Cheney & Leibermann in 2000 which had many people afterwards wondering if each party could flip their ticket and allow the "adults" to run. My preference would be to give them two hours, 4 topics, and say "go." The moderator will simply give them a twominute heads up when the first 30 minutes (and thus the first topic) were coming to a close - let them ask and follow up eachother as Titus suggested, but completely. We will learn as much with the type of questions they choose to ask as we will in how they answer their opponent, and this way no one gets a pre debate copy of the questions.
****
Thanks for the birthday kudos. My head is recovering quite nicely. One curiousity though about your registration comments. Why would ANYONE "hate" the low price having, everything you need (and don't need) under the sun, get your oil changed and prescription filled while shopping for dinner, bigger then US Steel and the mafia combined, WAL MART??? Do you realize the service they provide above and beyond their low prices? THEY EMPLOY THE UNEMPLOYABLE! You've seen the workers there - they make Copa grave shift dealers look like Nobel Laurates. That's the only down side, you will get zero assistance from the employees in locating or describing items - they're like the Yhetti, you think they may be out there but no one has actually seen one - but if you can fend for yourself, you've got the best goods 11 year old Chinese hands can produce!
First a few words about Miller - he is one of my favorite comedians and I'll tell you why. One, you had damn well better read more then one book (fortunately I've read two, he,he) and been alert in more then one history class if you intend to get his jokes. He's probably the most prolific story teller and simile inducer that has ever daned the American comedic stage. Secondly, his ideological transformation. I've seen him interviewed many a time and he speaks of having been a died in the wool liberal, and then two things happened - he became a father and Giuliani became mayor. He watched as the city of New York was transformed from a punch line dripping with gangsters and homeless squidgy men, to its former glory of a shining big city. He recalled how his friends like Tim Robbins and Susan Surandon referred to Rudy as a Nazi. And Miller both knowing history and realizing the positive Giuliani effect decided his party, the Democrat Party, was going off the deep end and he slowly migrated over. And I'm sure it has cost him plenty professionally speaking. How could he continue to make his way in that industry after endorsing McCain in 2000, Bush in 2004 and Giuliani in 2008? Not to mention the unforgivable sin of having a regular segment on The OReilly Factor entitled "Miller Time." After his ill fated stint on Monday Night football he morphed over to a big sports talk show, and that's his main gig now. Apparently he's a big football fan. He still does HBO hour stand up shows here and there and his most recent was here in Vegas, I urge you to catch it if you can. At any rate, when he defended Stockdale is when I first became a fan. I didn't watch the live SNL defense but he repeated it verbatim only a few nights later on Leno, and I mean you could tell he was fit to be tied over their treatment of a bonified war hero. He had much the same feeling in 2000 for McCain. On Conan O'Brian he said, "Think about being a POW for 5 years for a second ... I think John ought to pull up to the Republican convention on a Harley in a leather jacket, flip everybody the bird and say, 'screw you people, you owe me.'" Crowd went nuts.
And that leads into my other sentiment concerning the Stockdales and McCain's of our nation and those who would poke fun. I think that the "protesting" baby boomers (and this is generalizing I realize that), the 'hell no we won't go" sit-in, love-in flower child crowd basically fall into two camps as of 2008. In the one you have those for whom they are still glowingly proud of their protest years. They have pony tails (even while going bald on top), wear lots of muted colors and brown sandals, and are the base of the DNC. Then you have those, like Miller, whom realize the grave disservice they and their peers did to the actual servicemen during Vietnam. Put simply, they feel guilty. Spitting on returning troops, being called "baby killers" and having to listen to Kerry compare them to barbarians from centuries past, it all turns their stomach as they look back on it and they now get very angry and have zero patience for those whom would poke fun at people like Stockdale. They realize the only way to make "good" on their youthful mistreatment of Vietnam soldiers is to give them the respect they deserve in the here and now, and to their credit they do. Coincidentally they've usually changed their party registration. I know that this doesn't account for people like Senator Webb, but it accounts for enough that it was worth my mentioning.
And on a side note Letterman has a regular segment - I saw it on Special Report With Brit Hume - entitled "John McCain, He's Really Old." They speak of his desire to bring integrity to the oval office just like his mentor, Thomas Jefferson. And you can see where they're going from there. For at least a moment they should consider something. Just this week Hillary blatantly lied about landing and running under sniper fire in Tusla Bosnia in 1996, even CBS had to expose that, their reporters were on that plane and the video shows it was a normal ceremonial meet and greet. All I could picture was John McCain listening to her describe her "heroing" event and saying, "uh huh." With much the same look and attitude that Malarchy had when the new West Pointer mentioned that he and Webb dodged a few morters on the way in.
****
Our current debate formats are a joke, and purposely so. Debates, and the campaign in general come to think of it, are now designed to prevent gaffs rather then inform us of the candidate. Simply, "no mistakes" are the debate marching orders rather then having a genuine discussion. The closest we've had in recent memory was the VP debate between Cheney & Leibermann in 2000 which had many people afterwards wondering if each party could flip their ticket and allow the "adults" to run. My preference would be to give them two hours, 4 topics, and say "go." The moderator will simply give them a twominute heads up when the first 30 minutes (and thus the first topic) were coming to a close - let them ask and follow up eachother as Titus suggested, but completely. We will learn as much with the type of questions they choose to ask as we will in how they answer their opponent, and this way no one gets a pre debate copy of the questions.
****
Thanks for the birthday kudos. My head is recovering quite nicely. One curiousity though about your registration comments. Why would ANYONE "hate" the low price having, everything you need (and don't need) under the sun, get your oil changed and prescription filled while shopping for dinner, bigger then US Steel and the mafia combined, WAL MART??? Do you realize the service they provide above and beyond their low prices? THEY EMPLOY THE UNEMPLOYABLE! You've seen the workers there - they make Copa grave shift dealers look like Nobel Laurates. That's the only down side, you will get zero assistance from the employees in locating or describing items - they're like the Yhetti, you think they may be out there but no one has actually seen one - but if you can fend for yourself, you've got the best goods 11 year old Chinese hands can produce!
By the way...
Here's Miller's quote from the SNL episode in 1993:
"Now I know Stockdale's name has become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let's look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including our present President (Clinton), did not want to dirty their hands with. The reason he had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate is because those fucking animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn't spill his guts. He teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he's a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television."
What more topical defense of Stockdale could be made that would "get through" to contemporary youth culture... I will never know.
"Now I know Stockdale's name has become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let's look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including our present President (Clinton), did not want to dirty their hands with. The reason he had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate is because those fucking animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn't spill his guts. He teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he's a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television."
What more topical defense of Stockdale could be made that would "get through" to contemporary youth culture... I will never know.
What might have been...
Since making my post yesterday concerning debates, I have been doing a bit more reading, and I wanted to share a bit of what I found.
I was looking for the quote that comedian Dennis Miller made during a SNL broadcast right after the VP debate I discussed previously. Miller, who was typically (then) the kind of comedian that made a living mocking ANY politician, regardless of party affiliation, took serious exception to the manner in which Admiral Stockdale was portrayed in a live skit on the show. I recall the episode as one that made Stockdale look like a senile dotard because of his initial comments at the debate (“Who am I? Why am I here?”), which were supposed to elicit a degree of humor at his relative “Who’s that?” status among the viewing audience. Miller’s defense of Stockdale was harsh, but resonated with feeling and showed the superficial attitude most Americans viewed politics with very eloquently.
While I was looking for this quote, I found dozens of sites dedicated to honoring James Stockdale. I knew he was a POW in Vietnam, and I knew he was a Medal of Honor recipient… but the extent of his accomplishments during his career in the Navy and in academia absolutely blew me away!
The man had as distinguished an aviation career as one could hope in the Navy, earning the MoH, FOUR Silver Stars, and 21 additional combat-valor awards in 37 years of service, advancing as high as Vice Admiral before retiring from the service to serve as President of BOTH the Naval War College and the Citadel Military Academy. He had a Master’s Degree in International Relations and Marxist Theory, a PhD in Philosophy, and has written no fewer than 22 books aimed at instructing our young cadets and midshipmen on how best to serve their country and the men they lead.
He was so crippled after return from captivity in Vietnam that he was forced to remain in a hospital bed for nearly three years, needing to have his badly healed broken bones re-broken no fewer than 7 times, so that he could learn to walk all over again. He actually beat himself into a coma while in Hoa Lo prison so that the NVA couldn’t use him as a propaganda tool by putting him on TV.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that there are very few men that were probably MORE qualified to be VP than this man. As much as I know I have conflicted with his platform, another that I feel make the list of “Best Qualified for VP” (at least the ones that never made it) is Bob Dole… but he is a distant second behind this man.
I have included a link at the right for a PDF file of two of his lectures to the Naval Academy on the impact of stoicism to a young officer. I have read both of these short papers, and think EVERYONE should read them that hopes to better understand the role of the military in American society. A day will come in the not-too-distant future that I will insist that both my sister’s son and my soon-to-be step-children will all read these works.
When James B. Stockdale, VADM USN (ret.) died in 2005, this nation lost a true hero, and I (for one) will often wonder at how differently the US would see itself now had he won the opportunity to assist in leading this nation’s executive branch in 1992.
I was looking for the quote that comedian Dennis Miller made during a SNL broadcast right after the VP debate I discussed previously. Miller, who was typically (then) the kind of comedian that made a living mocking ANY politician, regardless of party affiliation, took serious exception to the manner in which Admiral Stockdale was portrayed in a live skit on the show. I recall the episode as one that made Stockdale look like a senile dotard because of his initial comments at the debate (“Who am I? Why am I here?”), which were supposed to elicit a degree of humor at his relative “Who’s that?” status among the viewing audience. Miller’s defense of Stockdale was harsh, but resonated with feeling and showed the superficial attitude most Americans viewed politics with very eloquently.
While I was looking for this quote, I found dozens of sites dedicated to honoring James Stockdale. I knew he was a POW in Vietnam, and I knew he was a Medal of Honor recipient… but the extent of his accomplishments during his career in the Navy and in academia absolutely blew me away!
The man had as distinguished an aviation career as one could hope in the Navy, earning the MoH, FOUR Silver Stars, and 21 additional combat-valor awards in 37 years of service, advancing as high as Vice Admiral before retiring from the service to serve as President of BOTH the Naval War College and the Citadel Military Academy. He had a Master’s Degree in International Relations and Marxist Theory, a PhD in Philosophy, and has written no fewer than 22 books aimed at instructing our young cadets and midshipmen on how best to serve their country and the men they lead.
He was so crippled after return from captivity in Vietnam that he was forced to remain in a hospital bed for nearly three years, needing to have his badly healed broken bones re-broken no fewer than 7 times, so that he could learn to walk all over again. He actually beat himself into a coma while in Hoa Lo prison so that the NVA couldn’t use him as a propaganda tool by putting him on TV.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that there are very few men that were probably MORE qualified to be VP than this man. As much as I know I have conflicted with his platform, another that I feel make the list of “Best Qualified for VP” (at least the ones that never made it) is Bob Dole… but he is a distant second behind this man.
I have included a link at the right for a PDF file of two of his lectures to the Naval Academy on the impact of stoicism to a young officer. I have read both of these short papers, and think EVERYONE should read them that hopes to better understand the role of the military in American society. A day will come in the not-too-distant future that I will insist that both my sister’s son and my soon-to-be step-children will all read these works.
When James B. Stockdale, VADM USN (ret.) died in 2005, this nation lost a true hero, and I (for one) will often wonder at how differently the US would see itself now had he won the opportunity to assist in leading this nation’s executive branch in 1992.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Here's more...
Wow… I forgot to say “Happy Birthday!” to Ryan. Hope you tie on a good one, buddy! Your “Mormon” conscience will heal a hell of a lot faster than your liver will, I’m sure.
While I’m back in “post-mode”, I may as well keep going, right?
There’s a blurb on the TV’s in the break room concerning Obama versus Clinton and their respective plans to reform healthcare. Just a fluff piece, with no depth or actual content offered… simply another opportunity to put faces on TV for the whole country to see and associate with hot-topics before November.
Do you know what this nation REALLY needs? Debate.
That’s it… that simple. Real, honest debate.
Imagine a venue that allowed the Democratic nominee and the GOP nominee to go face-to-face with the simple goal of explaining their position on specific topics. If an objective moderator could be found that could pry answers from a reluctant nominee, all the better, but it isn’t as needed as the venue itself.
Topics could be as general as the Federal Budget (about as broad a topic as you can get in American politics), or as specific as health care, the war in Iraq, terror, the economy… the options are nearly endless.
A question is asked, and each candidate gets two minutes to respond. This response is followed by questions and/or comments FROM a candidate TO a candidate, with a minute to ask, and another two minutes to respond. The advantage is that this format is impossible to script, at least after the initial questions are asked, and that the viewing audience will see just how ready the candidate is to respond to a moderator AND their opponent.
Look at the most significant debates in modern history, and you’ll see that the face-offs that occurred are the ones people remember… and that equates to VOTES, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.
Reagan and Bush in the Nashua Debates in ’80 is a great example (and one of Jambo’s favorites)… but an even better one would be the Vice Presidential Debate of the ’92 election. If you recall, Quayle, Gore and Stockdale were on television for a live debate… and Stockdale was the unquestioned loser with the viewing audience (although the live audience seemed to love him). The problem was, Stockdale was never given a list of the questions that were going to be asked, while Quayle and Gore were… as much as 8 days of study and preparation compared to Admiral Stockdale’s 22 minutes while they applied make-up to his face.
Look, I am not saying Perot would have won had the debate gone better for Stockdale… of course I don’t think that. But to say that the field was level and fair to all is simply unsupportable. What possible purpose can that kind of biased action (even if there was no ill intent) serve in a televised debate?
Every single debate I have seen in this election cycle (to date, anyway) has been canned questions that are next to impossible to answer with any detail, or “planted” questions intended to sway an audience rather than educate an audience.
When is Obama or Clinton going to have to answer the tough questions? When is McCain going to be given the opportunity to ask the tough questions? When do we get to see Hillary or Obama asking McCain to defend his position on Iraq, or lower taxes? When do the Dems answer Mac’s questions about who is going to pay for universal health care? Who better to ask these questions than the opponent? Who better to answer than the candidate?
While I’m back in “post-mode”, I may as well keep going, right?
There’s a blurb on the TV’s in the break room concerning Obama versus Clinton and their respective plans to reform healthcare. Just a fluff piece, with no depth or actual content offered… simply another opportunity to put faces on TV for the whole country to see and associate with hot-topics before November.
Do you know what this nation REALLY needs? Debate.
That’s it… that simple. Real, honest debate.
Imagine a venue that allowed the Democratic nominee and the GOP nominee to go face-to-face with the simple goal of explaining their position on specific topics. If an objective moderator could be found that could pry answers from a reluctant nominee, all the better, but it isn’t as needed as the venue itself.
Topics could be as general as the Federal Budget (about as broad a topic as you can get in American politics), or as specific as health care, the war in Iraq, terror, the economy… the options are nearly endless.
A question is asked, and each candidate gets two minutes to respond. This response is followed by questions and/or comments FROM a candidate TO a candidate, with a minute to ask, and another two minutes to respond. The advantage is that this format is impossible to script, at least after the initial questions are asked, and that the viewing audience will see just how ready the candidate is to respond to a moderator AND their opponent.
Look at the most significant debates in modern history, and you’ll see that the face-offs that occurred are the ones people remember… and that equates to VOTES, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.
Reagan and Bush in the Nashua Debates in ’80 is a great example (and one of Jambo’s favorites)… but an even better one would be the Vice Presidential Debate of the ’92 election. If you recall, Quayle, Gore and Stockdale were on television for a live debate… and Stockdale was the unquestioned loser with the viewing audience (although the live audience seemed to love him). The problem was, Stockdale was never given a list of the questions that were going to be asked, while Quayle and Gore were… as much as 8 days of study and preparation compared to Admiral Stockdale’s 22 minutes while they applied make-up to his face.
Look, I am not saying Perot would have won had the debate gone better for Stockdale… of course I don’t think that. But to say that the field was level and fair to all is simply unsupportable. What possible purpose can that kind of biased action (even if there was no ill intent) serve in a televised debate?
Every single debate I have seen in this election cycle (to date, anyway) has been canned questions that are next to impossible to answer with any detail, or “planted” questions intended to sway an audience rather than educate an audience.
When is Obama or Clinton going to have to answer the tough questions? When is McCain going to be given the opportunity to ask the tough questions? When do we get to see Hillary or Obama asking McCain to defend his position on Iraq, or lower taxes? When do the Dems answer Mac’s questions about who is going to pay for universal health care? Who better to ask these questions than the opponent? Who better to answer than the candidate?
My response...
First off, I’m not sure where we are registered… but I am inclined to think it is somewhere like Target. We hate Wal-Mart, and don’t know anyone (other than you, probably) that can afford to shop at Sax Fifth Avenue or Tiffany’s. I’ll let you know as soon as I can talk to Liz… but really, just you coming is enough, my friend. Kiss Ang from us and thank her for letting you come out.
Secondly, I did like Ryan’s “responsibility” post. It made me think of something that I have always questioned about today’s Democrats, compared to the Democrats of yester-year.
So many Democrats, and especially the ones running for the ticket now, seem to have forgotten that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are instruments of government that limit the power and authority of GOVERNMENT, and not the power and authority of the PEOPLE.
For an example, let’s use the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Whether you view the Amendment as a collective or an individual right (and I view it as the latter, without question), no one can argue the simple fact that the Amendment is not granting a right here… it is guarantying a right inherently understood to exist for all law-abiding Americans. What this Amendment is doing is defining what the GOVERNMENT can and cannot do… and that is infringe on that right. What constitutes “infringement” is what is being debated right now in the Supreme Court. None the less, this is a clear and perfect example of what this “instrument” of government does… it limits the role of Government, NOT the freedoms of the People.
If we are going to discuss what the Government’s responsibility is to the public, then I’d say it is to provide equal opportunity for all, and to protect this opportunity… but it CANNOT provide equal “results”. If all Americans are afforded the same opportunity to succeed in society, however they may define “success”, then the Government has fulfilled its primary function to the public. People like myself and Ryan may argue the need for such actions as taxes and government programs till hell freezes over, but I am sure we both agree that ANY action of the Government that happens outside the above-mentioned responsibility is both illegal and doomed to failure.
Imagine a system of government that DOES try to guaranty equal “results”… equality measured fiscally, politically, physically, mentally and emotionally. NO system of rule has ever even come close to providing this, and those that have tried are seen today as the most tyrannical and hated in history. Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany all tried to “equalize” the societies they ruled, and all were doomed to failure… either by those societies that recognized the danger they posed or by the very people they were trying to “equalize”.
This nation has forgotten that the ability of the individual to succeed lies with the individual, and NOT with the government. The government may provide incentive and assistance in the effort to succeed, and it MUST protect the individual’s right to work towards that success in a manner equal to anyone else in the land, but it cannot provide the “success” itself. If you doubt that, then ask yourself why Marx, Engels, and Lenin are now simply historical curiosities and not the intellectual icons they were 20 years ago.
Secondly, I did like Ryan’s “responsibility” post. It made me think of something that I have always questioned about today’s Democrats, compared to the Democrats of yester-year.
So many Democrats, and especially the ones running for the ticket now, seem to have forgotten that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are instruments of government that limit the power and authority of GOVERNMENT, and not the power and authority of the PEOPLE.
For an example, let’s use the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Whether you view the Amendment as a collective or an individual right (and I view it as the latter, without question), no one can argue the simple fact that the Amendment is not granting a right here… it is guarantying a right inherently understood to exist for all law-abiding Americans. What this Amendment is doing is defining what the GOVERNMENT can and cannot do… and that is infringe on that right. What constitutes “infringement” is what is being debated right now in the Supreme Court. None the less, this is a clear and perfect example of what this “instrument” of government does… it limits the role of Government, NOT the freedoms of the People.
If we are going to discuss what the Government’s responsibility is to the public, then I’d say it is to provide equal opportunity for all, and to protect this opportunity… but it CANNOT provide equal “results”. If all Americans are afforded the same opportunity to succeed in society, however they may define “success”, then the Government has fulfilled its primary function to the public. People like myself and Ryan may argue the need for such actions as taxes and government programs till hell freezes over, but I am sure we both agree that ANY action of the Government that happens outside the above-mentioned responsibility is both illegal and doomed to failure.
Imagine a system of government that DOES try to guaranty equal “results”… equality measured fiscally, politically, physically, mentally and emotionally. NO system of rule has ever even come close to providing this, and those that have tried are seen today as the most tyrannical and hated in history. Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany all tried to “equalize” the societies they ruled, and all were doomed to failure… either by those societies that recognized the danger they posed or by the very people they were trying to “equalize”.
This nation has forgotten that the ability of the individual to succeed lies with the individual, and NOT with the government. The government may provide incentive and assistance in the effort to succeed, and it MUST protect the individual’s right to work towards that success in a manner equal to anyone else in the land, but it cannot provide the “success” itself. If you doubt that, then ask yourself why Marx, Engels, and Lenin are now simply historical curiosities and not the intellectual icons they were 20 years ago.
So Jambo asks ...
"What responsibility does the federal government have to me (economically speaking), John Q tax payer?"
My response is this:
They have the responsibility of getting out of my way. To reduce red tape & excessive govt oversight. To encourage capital risk taking and to welcome, rather then punish, financial success via the tax code (I never got a job from a poor person). They shouldn't be in the business of bailing out Sterns, mortgages, or otherwise irresponsible individuals. They have the responsibility to stay out of the health care business except to ignore tort lawyers and regulate maximum punitive damages which get the Edwards of the country rich and cause young ER doctors to spend 84k of their initial 200k salary on malpractice insurance - contributing to the proverbial $14 aspirin during your hospital stay. They have the responsibility to reduce corporate tax, which is the second highest in the Western world so that companies and jobs stay here. They have the responsibility to review, yearly, the most favored nation trading status in order to be competitive with, rather then subject to, the whims of Beijing. They have the responsibility of leadership by drilling for energy in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California and in ANWAR whilst simultaneously inspiring a new generation to achieve landing on the moon in terms energy by providing vast contracts for a viable alternative - utilizing our single greatest asset, the rugged individual that is the American citizen. They have the constitutional responsibility to pursue our enemies and remove their blight from this earth so that the whims of Tehran don't send cold shivers up and down the spines of traders in New York, nor allow suicide bombers or highjacked planes to shut down the fianacial institutions of the greatest economic force the world has ever known. They have the responsibility to enforce our sovereignty along our borders so that neither wages nor the standard of health care provided in our hospitals continue to be depressed. They have the responsibility of providing the line item veto so that ear marks for bridges to nowhere will cease and fiscal responsibility that a 9 year old can grasp, namely you don't spend more then you have, will begin, thus raising the value of the dollar and increasing my buying power.
This message was approved by F.Ryan.......
My response is this:
They have the responsibility of getting out of my way. To reduce red tape & excessive govt oversight. To encourage capital risk taking and to welcome, rather then punish, financial success via the tax code (I never got a job from a poor person). They shouldn't be in the business of bailing out Sterns, mortgages, or otherwise irresponsible individuals. They have the responsibility to stay out of the health care business except to ignore tort lawyers and regulate maximum punitive damages which get the Edwards of the country rich and cause young ER doctors to spend 84k of their initial 200k salary on malpractice insurance - contributing to the proverbial $14 aspirin during your hospital stay. They have the responsibility to reduce corporate tax, which is the second highest in the Western world so that companies and jobs stay here. They have the responsibility to review, yearly, the most favored nation trading status in order to be competitive with, rather then subject to, the whims of Beijing. They have the responsibility of leadership by drilling for energy in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California and in ANWAR whilst simultaneously inspiring a new generation to achieve landing on the moon in terms energy by providing vast contracts for a viable alternative - utilizing our single greatest asset, the rugged individual that is the American citizen. They have the constitutional responsibility to pursue our enemies and remove their blight from this earth so that the whims of Tehran don't send cold shivers up and down the spines of traders in New York, nor allow suicide bombers or highjacked planes to shut down the fianacial institutions of the greatest economic force the world has ever known. They have the responsibility to enforce our sovereignty along our borders so that neither wages nor the standard of health care provided in our hospitals continue to be depressed. They have the responsibility of providing the line item veto so that ear marks for bridges to nowhere will cease and fiscal responsibility that a 9 year old can grasp, namely you don't spend more then you have, will begin, thus raising the value of the dollar and increasing my buying power.
This message was approved by F.Ryan.......
No, it IS that bad ...
"Hillenomics" would make Jimmy Carter look like Warren Buffet. She wants to "take" oil company profits & redistribute them to government bureaucracies searching for alternative energy. She wants a "birth fund" so that every child born in America will receive $5,000 - yes flat out 5k for being born. That'll make illegals less likely to come here right? She wants blanket amnesty. She wants to federalize1/7 of the US economy with her socialized medicine proposal. She wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts. It's "malaise" on steroids.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of welfare (outside of invalids & orphans) period, be it individual or corporate welfare. Here's the scenerio occuring in my opinion: Bush, in his capacity as head of the Republican Party, reads polls. The economy has surpassed the war in terms of what voters are most concerned with and he is desperately seeking to avoid two consecutive quarters of negative growth thus handing McCain the big "R" word right before what will undoubtedly be a tight election. So there's your Bear Sterns bail out, and that "rebate" check - they're band aids hoping to mask these inevitable corrections it what was a soaring market on all fronts. This is done rather then fundamentally reform our federal budget/deficit (weakening the dollar), our gas prices with alternative fuels in a moon shot scenario (giving consumers more buying power); private market solutions to health care; stopping the flow of illegals whom artificially depress real wages; or restructuring the trade imbalance with China - all of which would go a long ways towards raising the value of our dollar (Canada briefly pulled ahead of us earlier this year) and making our national economic policy more sound.
My read on your last post Jambo is that you're frustrated that the GOP isn't addressing any of those issues (and more) on fundamental levels thus making Hillary more appealing simply because it's different - stay strong & don't fall for it. Eventually we will get another congress like the 1994 crowd and real change will follow.
On a side note, since you mentioned Hillary, did you catch her description of her 1996 trip to Bosnia? She claims, "I remember landing under sniper fire and there was supposed to be a greeting ceremony on the tarmac but instead we just ran with our heads down all the way to the cars." Keep in mind that she was recalling this story during a stump speech which was to affirm her foreign policy credentials. Well, there is footage of said landing. She walks off the plane, with Chelsey. A group of military and foreign dignitaries greet her, and oh yes, she stops on the tarmac and bends down to kiss an 8 year old girl whom was bearing a greeting gift. He,he,he. What is it about the Clinton's that they have absolutely no relationship with the truth? Ya, I want 8 more years of this nonsense, lay it on me ....
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of welfare (outside of invalids & orphans) period, be it individual or corporate welfare. Here's the scenerio occuring in my opinion: Bush, in his capacity as head of the Republican Party, reads polls. The economy has surpassed the war in terms of what voters are most concerned with and he is desperately seeking to avoid two consecutive quarters of negative growth thus handing McCain the big "R" word right before what will undoubtedly be a tight election. So there's your Bear Sterns bail out, and that "rebate" check - they're band aids hoping to mask these inevitable corrections it what was a soaring market on all fronts. This is done rather then fundamentally reform our federal budget/deficit (weakening the dollar), our gas prices with alternative fuels in a moon shot scenario (giving consumers more buying power); private market solutions to health care; stopping the flow of illegals whom artificially depress real wages; or restructuring the trade imbalance with China - all of which would go a long ways towards raising the value of our dollar (Canada briefly pulled ahead of us earlier this year) and making our national economic policy more sound.
My read on your last post Jambo is that you're frustrated that the GOP isn't addressing any of those issues (and more) on fundamental levels thus making Hillary more appealing simply because it's different - stay strong & don't fall for it. Eventually we will get another congress like the 1994 crowd and real change will follow.
On a side note, since you mentioned Hillary, did you catch her description of her 1996 trip to Bosnia? She claims, "I remember landing under sniper fire and there was supposed to be a greeting ceremony on the tarmac but instead we just ran with our heads down all the way to the cars." Keep in mind that she was recalling this story during a stump speech which was to affirm her foreign policy credentials. Well, there is footage of said landing. She walks off the plane, with Chelsey. A group of military and foreign dignitaries greet her, and oh yes, she stops on the tarmac and bends down to kiss an 8 year old girl whom was bearing a greeting gift. He,he,he. What is it about the Clinton's that they have absolutely no relationship with the truth? Ya, I want 8 more years of this nonsense, lay it on me ....
Revisiting another old argument...
But Hilary today was talking about the mortgage crisis and her plan on fixing it. One of the things she threw out there was the feds 32 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, and how the 168 billion stimulus package will do nothing to address the foreclosure crisis.
So once again, what is the federal government's responsibility to Jambozi Q. Taxpayer in all this?
30 billion of my tax dollars goes to Bear Stearns? Is that what I want? And I'm not fan of Hilary, don't get me wrong, but her plan isn't that whacked. It is nice seeing something measurable and specific out there.
Thoughts? I'll have some later.
So once again, what is the federal government's responsibility to Jambozi Q. Taxpayer in all this?
30 billion of my tax dollars goes to Bear Stearns? Is that what I want? And I'm not fan of Hilary, don't get me wrong, but her plan isn't that whacked. It is nice seeing something measurable and specific out there.
Thoughts? I'll have some later.
"Cowboy? What are you, from Texas?"
Just a quick hit here - today's my birthday, the big 3-2. I'm off to ravish my significant other etc etc along with other efforts to celebrate the day (which may or may not end up requiring asprin tomorrow). Hey - if all goes well career wise perhaps this day will one day be a federal holiday - which means of course that nobody I know will get it off, bunch of Godless pagans we work for in this industry (that thought occurred to me as I shoved the dice out on CR402 at probably the same time Easter Mass was being administered).
Oh, Titus, where are you registering? You know - gifts and what not. It occurred to me that I'd figure out my own gift but Angela insisted I ask where you guys are registering ... she fears I'll purchase some old book or other historically oriented trinket - I mean why do that when the world is ripe with waffle makers and the sort?
Oh, Titus, where are you registering? You know - gifts and what not. It occurred to me that I'd figure out my own gift but Angela insisted I ask where you guys are registering ... she fears I'll purchase some old book or other historically oriented trinket - I mean why do that when the world is ripe with waffle makers and the sort?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Bravo!
I didn't even know that about McCain's plan, and it would seem of us 3 (whom fall into a 1% or less categotry regarding the following politics and other subjects) you were the only one, and even then had to research it. I agree, healthcare, the way Obama/Hillary propose it, is a gaping Achillies Heel that the GOP is for unexplained reasons not explooiting. Look how miserably "Hillarycare" failed politically last time, I mean we've seen this movie. And get this - even if we "got back" every red cent spent on Iraq thus far, it wouldn't cover Obama's plan for A SINGLE YEAR! And not only are the Dem plans disasterous in every measurable way, McCain has a ingeniously simple way - as you pointed out quite nicely - to go a long way towards healthcare reform.
I shudder to think McCain will be as inept at articulating his good ideas & successes as Bush is, let us hope not and that "McCaincare" will become a household name.
PS> just to dove tail with your argument, if the tax code actually encourages doctor visits, then it would translate into driving down the cost of things like, I don't know, medicine, ER visits (via frequency), Dr visits etc? I mean more "customers" means more competition for those dollars - "sales" on medicine, initial visits, prescreening etc, etc. Good post Titus - informative.
I shudder to think McCain will be as inept at articulating his good ideas & successes as Bush is, let us hope not and that "McCaincare" will become a household name.
PS> just to dove tail with your argument, if the tax code actually encourages doctor visits, then it would translate into driving down the cost of things like, I don't know, medicine, ER visits (via frequency), Dr visits etc? I mean more "customers" means more competition for those dollars - "sales" on medicine, initial visits, prescreening etc, etc. Good post Titus - informative.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Why are Republicans so dense?
It came to my attention last night, while driving home from a particularly trying night at work, that the GOP and its nominee-to-be Sen. John McCain have completely missed or squandered a HUGE opportunity to gain some early momentum in the '08 election.
While Hillary and Obama exchange hits over racism, sexism and class warfare, both are selling "national health care" as a cornerstone of their campaigns. Neither can give details of how it will be structured or who is going to pay for it... but both are selling it.
Last night one of the conservative pundits on Patriot 144 played a clip of McCain (weeks old, I believe) where he briefly explained HIS plans for health care reform. I was intrigued, so I got home and did some research of my own.
The plan McCain seems to want to endorse is simply a bill that will allow ALL costs associated with health care AND insurance coverage to be 100%, no minimum or maximum, deductible from your income taxes. At first I thought that this wasn't much more than we have now... but let's think about that a second.
I can't deduct the cost of my insurance unless I am self-insured AND my personal expenses exceed $5,700 a year (that's just insurance costs... not co-pays or extra-coverage expenses). Now, my current insurance plan (family coverage) at the casino is costing me just under $800 a year (yes, the joint has great benefits). Over the last calendar year, I haven't wracked up any co-pays or uninsured expenses, so this pretty much leaves me out in the cold as far as deductibles go, under the current tax code.
BUT, if McCain's plan (for lack of a better title) were to be the law of the land, then the $830 check I just wrote for the 15 year-old's braces would be deductible, as would the $2,500 in therapy that the 13-year-old is getting (he has a pre-existing developmental condition that requires the treatment), the $1,100 we have paid in prescription costs over the last 12 months (out of pocket, mind you), and any other incidentals associated with health care that I simply haven't thought of yet.
That's $5,230 in additional deductions that I could take at the end of the year... just off the top of my head. I think that this relief alone would damn-near be enough of a tax-cut to justify the GOP's whole-hearted support of McCain, regardless of past liberal-minded mistakes.
Why isn't this plan being sold at every single stump-stop or campaign speech McCain is giving? Why do I have to research the plan myself? This kills a BUNCH of birds with one stone... making health care more affordable, tax relief, less pressure on the doctor's running small businesses and trying to make it in and industry that is being strangled by insurance premiums (lest we forget, Dr.'s need insurance too, as do their employees), and those "outside" of the system no longer have as great an ability to "ride" the system with no expenses of their own (meaning unregistered, illegal aliens).
Now, I know this won't eliminate the cost of illegals gaining health care completely, but if those with welfare-coverage that entails a co-pay or some kind of out-of-pocket expense and the AREN'T filing 1040's at the end of the year, they do not recoup the cost.
Even more importantly, THIS kind of cost relief has an added benefit that NO ONE seems to see...
If you think of the relief as increasing proportionally to how much you spend on health care, than the more you GO to a doctor, the more you get back in deductibles at the end of the year. We, here in my family in NEPA, can gain almost as much in deductions from THIS plan as we do from deducting the interest on our house! The general population is encouraged to spend more at the doctor's office (at least in co-pays and insurance deductibles) and the cost of coverage suddenly doesn't factor into their budget as painfully as it does now... that cost is seen just like a house note versus rent. There's no deduction for rent, but a big part of your house note is deductible.
Where is the downside to THIS? It can be called a "tax cut" if the GOP insists, and it is, but this could be sold to a nation fascinated with Obama "mania" and Hillary "watching" (whether you are a subscriber or not) as HEALTH CARE REFORM and coul dhave a huge impact on McCain and the GOP's image in the upcoming election.
While Hillary and Obama exchange hits over racism, sexism and class warfare, both are selling "national health care" as a cornerstone of their campaigns. Neither can give details of how it will be structured or who is going to pay for it... but both are selling it.
Last night one of the conservative pundits on Patriot 144 played a clip of McCain (weeks old, I believe) where he briefly explained HIS plans for health care reform. I was intrigued, so I got home and did some research of my own.
The plan McCain seems to want to endorse is simply a bill that will allow ALL costs associated with health care AND insurance coverage to be 100%, no minimum or maximum, deductible from your income taxes. At first I thought that this wasn't much more than we have now... but let's think about that a second.
I can't deduct the cost of my insurance unless I am self-insured AND my personal expenses exceed $5,700 a year (that's just insurance costs... not co-pays or extra-coverage expenses). Now, my current insurance plan (family coverage) at the casino is costing me just under $800 a year (yes, the joint has great benefits). Over the last calendar year, I haven't wracked up any co-pays or uninsured expenses, so this pretty much leaves me out in the cold as far as deductibles go, under the current tax code.
BUT, if McCain's plan (for lack of a better title) were to be the law of the land, then the $830 check I just wrote for the 15 year-old's braces would be deductible, as would the $2,500 in therapy that the 13-year-old is getting (he has a pre-existing developmental condition that requires the treatment), the $1,100 we have paid in prescription costs over the last 12 months (out of pocket, mind you), and any other incidentals associated with health care that I simply haven't thought of yet.
That's $5,230 in additional deductions that I could take at the end of the year... just off the top of my head. I think that this relief alone would damn-near be enough of a tax-cut to justify the GOP's whole-hearted support of McCain, regardless of past liberal-minded mistakes.
Why isn't this plan being sold at every single stump-stop or campaign speech McCain is giving? Why do I have to research the plan myself? This kills a BUNCH of birds with one stone... making health care more affordable, tax relief, less pressure on the doctor's running small businesses and trying to make it in and industry that is being strangled by insurance premiums (lest we forget, Dr.'s need insurance too, as do their employees), and those "outside" of the system no longer have as great an ability to "ride" the system with no expenses of their own (meaning unregistered, illegal aliens).
Now, I know this won't eliminate the cost of illegals gaining health care completely, but if those with welfare-coverage that entails a co-pay or some kind of out-of-pocket expense and the AREN'T filing 1040's at the end of the year, they do not recoup the cost.
Even more importantly, THIS kind of cost relief has an added benefit that NO ONE seems to see...
If you think of the relief as increasing proportionally to how much you spend on health care, than the more you GO to a doctor, the more you get back in deductibles at the end of the year. We, here in my family in NEPA, can gain almost as much in deductions from THIS plan as we do from deducting the interest on our house! The general population is encouraged to spend more at the doctor's office (at least in co-pays and insurance deductibles) and the cost of coverage suddenly doesn't factor into their budget as painfully as it does now... that cost is seen just like a house note versus rent. There's no deduction for rent, but a big part of your house note is deductible.
Where is the downside to THIS? It can be called a "tax cut" if the GOP insists, and it is, but this could be sold to a nation fascinated with Obama "mania" and Hillary "watching" (whether you are a subscriber or not) as HEALTH CARE REFORM and coul dhave a huge impact on McCain and the GOP's image in the upcoming election.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I just like Joe, that's all ...
Outiside of his 2000 campaign run that is (when he had to curtail his views to that of the top of the ticket). I confess to giving into the emotion of appreciating the way he risked his Senate seat in order to stick with victory in Iraq, versus exit strategies and all of that occured to me as I saw him standing there off of McCain's right shoulder on the ground in the Middle East. I'm on record with who I think is the strategic pick - Gov Crist of FLA.
Funny you arguing it need be a conservative. If I had my druthers it would be a Santorum Barbour ticket - two rock rib conservatives, one from the NE one from the South. May have ended up that way had Rick held on to his PA seat, but like Joe (almost anyway) support for Iraq cost him plenty.
You & Leiberman need to stop posing and join the GOP.
Funny you arguing it need be a conservative. If I had my druthers it would be a Santorum Barbour ticket - two rock rib conservatives, one from the NE one from the South. May have ended up that way had Rick held on to his PA seat, but like Joe (almost anyway) support for Iraq cost him plenty.
You & Leiberman need to stop posing and join the GOP.
Who are you...
... and what have you done with F Ryan???
While I am inclined to agree with you that Lieberman would be a great (perhaps the only) cross-party VP candidate choice, James did have some valid points in his post on this topic... and Joe addresses none of them.
He's definitely NOT Southern.
He's not "conservative" enough for the GOP base... they'd see it as another McCain sell-out to the "left".
He'd appeal to moderates, but probably not too many Dems would cross to vote for him. He is known for supporting "Bush" more than for supporting "conservative" ideals (with the exception of his pro-life views).
I am still of the opinion that McCain and whoever his running mate is MUST run a campaign as independent of Bush as possible. Put as many miles as you can between the "new" GOP candidate and the last... it leaves too much to chance otherwise.
A campaign selling strong defense and individual freedom as its core planks will appeal to moderates and conservatives alike, and doesn't need to be "dressed up" with bi-partisan ticket promises. Here's why I think that is very true...
Remember Dukakis? His very liberal positions went up against the Reagan-Bush agenda of "popular conservatism" and lost epically. Yet he won a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bush did in '92 (who also lost, in case any of you weren't paying attention...) because Clinton focused on a "centrist" or "moderate" platform to appeal to the broadest section of his base that he could. There was nothing radical or "leftist" in what Clinton was spouting... he just did a great job beating up Bush Sr. (and Reagan, by the way) for mistakes made since 1981... real or otherwise. So, when Bush Sr decided to take his support among the moderate GOP voters for granted and tried to appeal to Dems with his reasoning for the "new taxes" he promised he wouldn't enact (budget reduction, more programs, etc.)... it backfired and he became (arguably) the first successfull war-time President to lose a re-election bid.
McCain is going up against a VERY liberal opponent... regardless of who it is. When there is that much seperation between candidates, history shows us that you have to stick to core issues and do whatever it takes to bank on the most enthusiastic support of the base as possible. The more popular the McCain-? ticket is with the majority of GOP votes, the more popular it will be to moderates and conservative Dems like myself.
Please, do not take this to mean that I think a bi-partisan Cabinet is a bad thing... I do NOT think that. McCain could offer Joe (or any one of a dozen other "Blue Dogs") a rock-solid cabinet position (wouldn't a Dem in the SoS chair make sense in todays international arena?)... but the VP MUST be a conservative, or he risks pissing off the base even more than they are now.
No, my friend... the questions isn't "Should it be a Blue Dog?" The question is "Should it be a woman or another executive?" Kay Bailey Hutchison or Haley Barbour? That Sarah Whosit (from Alaska) or Michael Steel (black former Lt Gov of MD)? ALL are rock-solid conservatives, and none are questionable in their positions.
While I am inclined to agree with you that Lieberman would be a great (perhaps the only) cross-party VP candidate choice, James did have some valid points in his post on this topic... and Joe addresses none of them.
He's definitely NOT Southern.
He's not "conservative" enough for the GOP base... they'd see it as another McCain sell-out to the "left".
He'd appeal to moderates, but probably not too many Dems would cross to vote for him. He is known for supporting "Bush" more than for supporting "conservative" ideals (with the exception of his pro-life views).
I am still of the opinion that McCain and whoever his running mate is MUST run a campaign as independent of Bush as possible. Put as many miles as you can between the "new" GOP candidate and the last... it leaves too much to chance otherwise.
A campaign selling strong defense and individual freedom as its core planks will appeal to moderates and conservatives alike, and doesn't need to be "dressed up" with bi-partisan ticket promises. Here's why I think that is very true...
Remember Dukakis? His very liberal positions went up against the Reagan-Bush agenda of "popular conservatism" and lost epically. Yet he won a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bush did in '92 (who also lost, in case any of you weren't paying attention...) because Clinton focused on a "centrist" or "moderate" platform to appeal to the broadest section of his base that he could. There was nothing radical or "leftist" in what Clinton was spouting... he just did a great job beating up Bush Sr. (and Reagan, by the way) for mistakes made since 1981... real or otherwise. So, when Bush Sr decided to take his support among the moderate GOP voters for granted and tried to appeal to Dems with his reasoning for the "new taxes" he promised he wouldn't enact (budget reduction, more programs, etc.)... it backfired and he became (arguably) the first successfull war-time President to lose a re-election bid.
McCain is going up against a VERY liberal opponent... regardless of who it is. When there is that much seperation between candidates, history shows us that you have to stick to core issues and do whatever it takes to bank on the most enthusiastic support of the base as possible. The more popular the McCain-? ticket is with the majority of GOP votes, the more popular it will be to moderates and conservative Dems like myself.
Please, do not take this to mean that I think a bi-partisan Cabinet is a bad thing... I do NOT think that. McCain could offer Joe (or any one of a dozen other "Blue Dogs") a rock-solid cabinet position (wouldn't a Dem in the SoS chair make sense in todays international arena?)... but the VP MUST be a conservative, or he risks pissing off the base even more than they are now.
No, my friend... the questions isn't "Should it be a Blue Dog?" The question is "Should it be a woman or another executive?" Kay Bailey Hutchison or Haley Barbour? That Sarah Whosit (from Alaska) or Michael Steel (black former Lt Gov of MD)? ALL are rock-solid conservatives, and none are questionable in their positions.
VP?
What's the down side to McCain picking Leiberman? Did you see him off his right side of John at every stop on the tour? And the conservatives love him, the Dem party abandoned him & the Limbaugh's/Hannitty's adore him - Hannitty & Beck even voted for him! And even though he's technically an Independent now it will look like the first cross party ticket in history (that I know of).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
On Russia and missiles...
I guess I’m confused about why anyone would question Russia’s hesitance to accept this missile defense deployment by the US (and ONLY the US) into Eastern Europe, especially after mentioning the START treaties.
START II was a treaty that reduced and-or eliminated MIRV warheads on ICBM missiles, because of their propensity to encourage a “first strike” strategy on both sides. The math is complicated (as is everything involved in “rocket science”), but the gist is simply that if you have 10 missiles, each with 10 MIRVs, you can triple your chances of eliminating enemy silos by targeting two warheads at each silo. If your enemy has the same number of missiles with the same number of MIRVs, then it behooves you to launch 2 missiles FIRST (with two MIRVs aimed at each of the enemy silos), thus eliminating 99% of all enemy missiles AND MIRVs while retaining 80% of your own arsenal of weapons and launch vehicles.
The figures grow in favor of a “first strike” if the enemy has MORE missiles with MORE MIRVs than you do, because it is then that much more likely that he can viably eliminate the threat you pose to his silos if he gets his launched first.
It is this reasoning that is causing all the sleepless nights in the Kremlin… because a functional missile defense negates the mutual threat objectively balanced arsenals provide against one another in the same way MIRVs did before START II. This is the ONLY reason that “Star Wars” drove the Soviets into bankruptcy back in the late ‘80s… they HAD to counter superior US missile targeting capabilities and numbers, and when the USSR fell apart, Yeltsin was nearly sober with the need to get Bush Sr. to sign the START II treaties so that he could eliminate the threat that MIRVs posed to his fledgling military.
Now, I’m not saying the missiles shouldn’t be deployed… far from. I’m just trying to explain in clear and certain terms WHY the Russians are unhappy, and that the reason is real and measurable in many ways, not the least of which is the effect American supremacy in missile capabilities (real or perceived) has had in the past on Soviet/Russian politics. The first time the Soviets began to realize how good our missiles and targeting computers were compared to theirs, the USSR spent itself into the grave. The second time brought the newly formed Russian Federation to the treaty table so fast Boris Yeltsin missed happy hour.
Putin knows his strategic missile forces are aging and haven’t been maintained as they should have been due to a lack of funds over the last 25 years. Now that he is pumping pure black crude and natural gas into Europe faster than Rev. Wright pumps pure black hate and hot air into his congregation, he can afford to dabble in new technology and better delivery systems for his warheads… perhaps he can even update his warheads themselves. What he can’t afford is to do that AND develop a counter to the missile defense on his own front stoop. Not in time for it to make a difference.
We will fail diplomatically and strategically if we forget to take into account the defense paranoia that Russians as a people maintain. They are only one generation removed from an invasion that cost them more than 20 million lives, and untold years of playing catch-up with the West (even if they hadn’t been Commies… they had the same devastation and destruction to deal with that Germany and Japan had), and they are culturally surrounded by reminders of WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, and the wars fought in the Crimea and Northern Europe at the end of the 18th Century. Russia has a history of long and very bloody attacks to the “Rodinya”, and they take their national defense as seriously as any nation on earth. To this day, the single most popular tourist sights in Russia FOR Russians are memorials and monuments to fallen heroes that died defending Mother Russia from invaders.
I couldn’t find anything “meaty” about this SFA you wrote about, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. I just hope it keeps US interests FIRST without alienating Russian concerns about defense of Russia. If we are doing this to protect Europe first, and US interests second, then I question the rational of the whole thing. Since when is the US responsible for the defense of our European allies from rogue (Iranian) missile attacks… especially in light of the “partnerships” our nation has seen evaporate since 2001? If our concern is primarily to stop an Iranian missile from killing hundreds in Prague or Paris or Plymouth and NOT from stopping a missile from doing the same in Peoria or Philadelphia or Penobscot… then let the Russians do it, or let them do it themselves.
START II was a treaty that reduced and-or eliminated MIRV warheads on ICBM missiles, because of their propensity to encourage a “first strike” strategy on both sides. The math is complicated (as is everything involved in “rocket science”), but the gist is simply that if you have 10 missiles, each with 10 MIRVs, you can triple your chances of eliminating enemy silos by targeting two warheads at each silo. If your enemy has the same number of missiles with the same number of MIRVs, then it behooves you to launch 2 missiles FIRST (with two MIRVs aimed at each of the enemy silos), thus eliminating 99% of all enemy missiles AND MIRVs while retaining 80% of your own arsenal of weapons and launch vehicles.
The figures grow in favor of a “first strike” if the enemy has MORE missiles with MORE MIRVs than you do, because it is then that much more likely that he can viably eliminate the threat you pose to his silos if he gets his launched first.
It is this reasoning that is causing all the sleepless nights in the Kremlin… because a functional missile defense negates the mutual threat objectively balanced arsenals provide against one another in the same way MIRVs did before START II. This is the ONLY reason that “Star Wars” drove the Soviets into bankruptcy back in the late ‘80s… they HAD to counter superior US missile targeting capabilities and numbers, and when the USSR fell apart, Yeltsin was nearly sober with the need to get Bush Sr. to sign the START II treaties so that he could eliminate the threat that MIRVs posed to his fledgling military.
Now, I’m not saying the missiles shouldn’t be deployed… far from. I’m just trying to explain in clear and certain terms WHY the Russians are unhappy, and that the reason is real and measurable in many ways, not the least of which is the effect American supremacy in missile capabilities (real or perceived) has had in the past on Soviet/Russian politics. The first time the Soviets began to realize how good our missiles and targeting computers were compared to theirs, the USSR spent itself into the grave. The second time brought the newly formed Russian Federation to the treaty table so fast Boris Yeltsin missed happy hour.
Putin knows his strategic missile forces are aging and haven’t been maintained as they should have been due to a lack of funds over the last 25 years. Now that he is pumping pure black crude and natural gas into Europe faster than Rev. Wright pumps pure black hate and hot air into his congregation, he can afford to dabble in new technology and better delivery systems for his warheads… perhaps he can even update his warheads themselves. What he can’t afford is to do that AND develop a counter to the missile defense on his own front stoop. Not in time for it to make a difference.
We will fail diplomatically and strategically if we forget to take into account the defense paranoia that Russians as a people maintain. They are only one generation removed from an invasion that cost them more than 20 million lives, and untold years of playing catch-up with the West (even if they hadn’t been Commies… they had the same devastation and destruction to deal with that Germany and Japan had), and they are culturally surrounded by reminders of WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, and the wars fought in the Crimea and Northern Europe at the end of the 18th Century. Russia has a history of long and very bloody attacks to the “Rodinya”, and they take their national defense as seriously as any nation on earth. To this day, the single most popular tourist sights in Russia FOR Russians are memorials and monuments to fallen heroes that died defending Mother Russia from invaders.
I couldn’t find anything “meaty” about this SFA you wrote about, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. I just hope it keeps US interests FIRST without alienating Russian concerns about defense of Russia. If we are doing this to protect Europe first, and US interests second, then I question the rational of the whole thing. Since when is the US responsible for the defense of our European allies from rogue (Iranian) missile attacks… especially in light of the “partnerships” our nation has seen evaporate since 2001? If our concern is primarily to stop an Iranian missile from killing hundreds in Prague or Paris or Plymouth and NOT from stopping a missile from doing the same in Peoria or Philadelphia or Penobscot… then let the Russians do it, or let them do it themselves.
S.F.A.
Which stands for Strategic Framework Agreement. SoS Rice & SoD Gates are in Moscow meeting with their counterparts today, and they met with President Putin just last night. Why? To get this lagging issue of missile defense in Eastern Europe out of the way, which has apparently been the thorn in Putin's side derailing any and all progress towards a congenial post Soviet Russo-American relationship. They've finally had a bit of a break through. The US has agreed in writing to allow Russian observers to be/remain on site at our impending missile & radar sites we are putting in the Czech Republic and Poland - meant to thwart Iran primarily - and demonstrate that they are pointed at, and only at Tehran. Both have also agreed to set up the SFA as a means of dealing with all future issues. One of those issues will be coming up with a framework that will replace the expiring START 1 (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) next year, which is the framework set in place for inspecting, verifying and ultimately attempting to limit our mutual nuclear weapons programs, along with other nuclear nonproliferation provisions. The full text of the treaty is at http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-139.htm
So, something on the order of 4 years after announcing the withdrawal of the ABM treaty so that we could go forward with those Czech & Polish missile sites the Bush administration finally gets creative in trying to mend that fence while getting what we want - a deterrent for Iran concerning any attacks on our NATO allies. Well, its a start and a helluva good thing to set in motion before the next president takes office ... read: just in case its a Democrat.
So, something on the order of 4 years after announcing the withdrawal of the ABM treaty so that we could go forward with those Czech & Polish missile sites the Bush administration finally gets creative in trying to mend that fence while getting what we want - a deterrent for Iran concerning any attacks on our NATO allies. Well, its a start and a helluva good thing to set in motion before the next president takes office ... read: just in case its a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
