Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 7/17
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted July 17, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
239 Comments
54 Reasons to Impeach, Convict and Remove George W. Bush from office.Remember the Pentagon’s “Iraqi Most Wanted” Cards?
The tables have turned… courtesy of http://www.impeachbushcards.com
HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH YET? WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE???!!!
Copy ‘em and pass them around… send them to Congress…
FORCE THEM TO PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE!—–
Did G. Sheridan/Tippy leave?I thought it smelled better in here.
she might have, but nic troll, whatever his name is today, is still around…
HI Tracy– I have a suspicion that she also switched nics. See if you can spot it!
Good to see ya bro’!
Well, at least he isn’t cutting benefits — I guess!!
Bush ‘Strongly Opposes’ Troop Pay, Benefit Initiatives
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,142117,00.html
Bigger Military Raise, Better Benefits HitTom Philpott | July 13, 2007
Talk about lousy timing.With President Bush’s popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched soldier tours to 15 months, the Bush administration July 10 said it “strongly opposes” key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill.Initiatives the administration “strongly opposes” include:– A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.– Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.– Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.
.. more at the link
Look! I’ll let you Dems have Bush, if you give over Reid and force him to resign.
Fair?
What, Joe, afraid of Reid? It will take Reid, Pelosi and even some of the Republicans are coming to the realization that GWB is drowing in unpopularity and doesn’t have a chance to resurface unscathed. And to make matters worse, Bush is drowning the GOP party as he keeps going down and down.
Your side had better wake up and smell the oil fumes. Bush and Cheney are your side’s worst nightmare.
I’m not on the side of Bush. I’m for the nation.
Reid is worse than Bush in my opinion, and Congress has a worse approval rating that Bush.
Reid is a corrupt SOB and needs to be kicked out and jailed. Pelosi isn’t bad. Just Reid.
Reid is corrupt?? Isnt that one of Rush’s talking points on an almost daily basis??
But is Reid any more corrupt than Tom DeLay or many other Republicans? Why do you pick on just Harry Reid?
Chas – of course if it is being spewed on this blog – it came from Rush’s talking points. As if Rush is the pure one to be talking about anybody else being corrupt. That’s a laugh.
As I recall Congress is made up of Democrats and Republicans. So if their approval rating is lower than Bush’s, then it is half the fault of the Republicans. Let’s not whitewash the facts here.
No. I listen to Rush every now and then. He doesn’t talk about Reid all that much expect for when ever Reid makes his almost daily BS remarks to the media as a attention whore that he is.
No! I checked out his history.
Dude is nothing but a Mormon asshole, but you Dems look the other way because anybody that is a Democrat is clean and an upstanding citizen. Which makes you blind to the real world.
I’ll give you a list of bad Republicans that should be kicked out of Congress also. Tom Delay is a freakin bad guy and I’m super happy he’s out of Congress. Another corrupt Republican that really needs to go is Ted Stevens from Alaska. What a bad guy. Chuck Hagle is a corrupt SOB. I can keep going.
But you Dems think Reid turds don’t stink, because he’s a Democrat. Trust me! He’s a very bad guy.
CR! You’re right. Republicans are at fault too.
I appreciate your clarification, Joe… thanks!
As far as approval ratings, I guess some folks just dont get the idea that just because the Dems won both houses of Congress, that they dont have enough of a majority to pass everything that they have tried to get done… This week is another good example… with this “all nighter” thing they are talking about now…
Actually the approval ratings have been low for Congress for many, many years, even going back to the Clinton Impeachment fiasco, which I totally disagreed with.
Congress and the Congressional leaders showboat too much. That is their problem. They are too busy trying to make political points and getting in front of a TV camera then they are about doing real legislative work. Their agenda is about pushing the party and not what is really needed.
For instance this whole Troop Pull out BS they are talking about. Regardless of what your opinion is about the Iraq War, is specifically designed as to end the War (not really, just an impression that it’s ended) as to keep it from being an Issue in the Presidential Elections next year.
Timetable right? Yeah! How about a Timetable to pull them out of Iraq by the end of 2009. Give them 2 1/2 years. It’s not how they are acting. Everything that Congress is trying to do today is all designed for next years Presidential Election. They shouldn’t care about the Presidential Election, just do their legislative branch business and keep out. But Political Parties are so entrenched, that it’s all about pushing the Political Parties into dominance that one wants total control of the government. A very bad thing.
Harry Reid– A name you can trust
In November 2005 the Associated Press reported that Senate Minority Leader Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.Reid “sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002,” the AP said. “The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid’s group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.”
WASHINGTON (AP) – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.The Nevada Democrat’s deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He’s never been charged with wrongdoing—except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.
On October 17, 2006, John Solomon of the Associated Press reported that Reid had used campaign donations to pay for $3,300 in Christmas gifts to the staff at the condominium where he resides. Federal election law prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal use
Interesting you put it that way… Because, isnt that the way competing businesses carry on with advertising, and sales, and public relations gimmicks??? MAYbe it might mean that our Congressional representatives think they are in some kind of competitive Business venture, instead of government… Now, that would be one of the best reasons ever to start really pushing for term limits…
Everything that Congress is trying to do today is all designed for next years Presidential Election. They shouldn’t care about the Presidential Election, just do their legislative branch business and keep out. But Political Parties are so entrenched, that it’s all about pushing the Political Parties into dominance that one wants total control of the government. A very bad thing.
Posted by: Joe Williams | July 17, 2007 at 08:51 AM
So true. The major political parties care nothing for the people. They care about power and control. They care about the party period. So many people buy into it, and get controlled by it, and the puppeteers laugh. The matrix is real
If that were true, Joe, then Bush and republicans should allow them to pass the troop withdrawal. Then it won’t be an issue.
I am sorry that the dems have to take the heat for the unfunding of the war. Because if they do that, republicans will bait them into hurting the soldiers, and no matter what the dems don’t want to hurt the soldiers more than they already are.
So we must wait till the elections, till someone other than King George is in office so we can pull them out safely.
Who did Tippy morph into?
P_Mom, as mentioned many many times before, congress does NOT have to cut funding to end this. They can revoke the authority to wage war. There is enough money in the pipe right now to get the troops home.
Why are they not perusing this avenue? Don’t pity the libs in congress, be pissed.
If so P-Mom. Why not have our troops pulled out of Afghanistan also?
Why is the timetable set up specifically before next year or before the Conventions in August of next year?
Ummm I think that revoking the authority to do the war is where they cant get the amount of votes needed, without a few more republicans voting with them… At least thats what I thought I was reading last week… Of course, this is a new week in Washington, so, who knows what this week will bring…
The republicans in office won’t DO that. They have to have enough votes to pass it.
P_Mom,
They are pulling an all nighter. More and more conservatives are seeing this as the only option – to withdraw. If the libs keep up the pressure and keep exposing the facts, they can get it done. Have faith in your party P_Mom. If my party had the voice that yours does, we’d already be home.
I would suggest that the revoking of authority to pursue the war is of questionable Constitutional validity. It does have a facially apparent simplistic appeal, to be sure. I’ve nothing concrete upon which I base the above, except an overall feeling of unease concerning the procedure, in light of the provisions of the Constitution itself.
Without taxing my poor caffeine deprived brain, I have grave doubts about the ultimate efficacy of this approach. Given that, nothing short of stripping the funding will be effective, and, as has been clearly stated above, this places the opponents to the war on the horns of a political dilemma where no matter the course chosen, the same will be wrong.
Vaughn, now that you mention it, I think you are onto something there…
Joe,
I certainly hope that question regarding Afghanistan was rhetorical. If not, you have missed the point of practically every debate regarding the war that has occured on this blog…
The majority of posters (myself included, although I am not a democrat) do not disagree with the concept of going after the people behind 9/11. That would therefore validate the need for troops in Afghanistan. However, we DO oppose going after someone who had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks for nothing more than “revenge” and monetary gain, which is EXACTLY what GWB did by failing to disclose that there WERE NO WMD’s in Iraq, and that the Iragi gov’t (regardless of how corrupt they may otherwise be) had NO TIES to Al Queda OR Osama Bin Laden, and NOTHING TO DO with the 9/11 attacks, all of which Bush claimed when he pushed for this damn war in the first place.
What we want is to see our troops safely home rather than losing their lives fighting a war we have no business fighting (sound familiar? Vietnam anyone? Does Bush even know how to read – or did he just gloss over that whole history lesson when he avoided his service terms?) THAT is our point. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on here who does NOT support our troops being in Afghanistan fighting the battles we SHOULD be fighting… well, except for maybe Bush himself, you know, since he doesn’t even think about Bin Laden anymore…
anon, your point is well taken, I would further suggest that action against the Saudis could also be justified on the same grounds, given the (at least apparent) “wink and a nod” given the Wahabbis by the Royal family.
Pull our troops out of Iraq and send them into Saudi.
Wouldn’t it be great if more robberies ended like this?
Bondage FileRead more weird news in the Bondage File.
(07-13) 11:17 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) –Police on Capitol Hill are baffled by an attempted robbery that began with a handgun put to the head of a 14-year-old girl and ended in a group hug.It started around midnight on June 16 when a group of friends was finishing dinner on the patio of a District of Columbia home, authorities and witnesses said. That’s when a hooded man slid through an open gate and pointed a handgun at the girl’s head.”Give me your money, or I’ll start shooting,” he said, the witnesses told The Washington Post.Everyone froze, they said, but then one guest spoke up.”We were just finishing dinner,” Cristina Rowan, 43, told the man. “Why don’t you have a glass of wine with us?”The intruder had a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupery and said, “Damn, that’s good wine.”The girl’s father, Michael Rabdau, 51, told him to take the whole glass, and Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, with his hood down, took another sip and a bite of Camembert cheese and put the gun in his sweatpants.Then the story got even more bizarre.The man with the gun apologized, the witnesses told the Post.”I think I may have come to the wrong house,” he said. “Can I get a hug?”Rowan stood up and wrapped her arms around the man and the four other guests followed.The man walked away a few moments later with the crystal wine glass in hand. No one was hurt, but once he was gone, the group went inside, locked the door and called 911.Police said Friday that the case was strange but true. Investigators have not located a suspect.”We’ve had robbers that apologize and stuff, but nothing where they sit down and drink wine,” Cmdr. Diane Groomes said. “The only good thing is they would be able to identify him because they hugged them.”
Damnit VT, ya beat me in.
And, there is the wine glass from which prints might be lifted as well.
He took the glass with him. But he DID come through a window. Might be prints there.
This nation will never learn the lessons of the Iraq War, as long as American’s deny that our government, not just one person, the president, told the American people there were reasons for the war – and voted to commit troops to the war.
If you are going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same “lies”. You must admit the truth if we are to learn anything from this and keep it from happening again. Both parties, all politicians played a part in our commitment to war:”If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.”[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998″This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others”Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002″There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002″Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002″We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against IraqAs Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Well put Medusa
By the way, for those constitutional fans, the senate did not declare war.
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), NayAllard (R-CO), YeaAllen (R-VA), YeaBaucus (D-MT), YeaBayh (D-IN), YeaBennett (R-UT), YeaBiden (D-DE), YeaBingaman (D-NM), NayBond (R-MO), YeaBoxer (D-CA), NayBreaux (D-LA), YeaBrownback (R-KS), YeaBunning (R-KY), YeaBurns (R-MT), YeaByrd (D-WV), NayCampbell (R-CO), YeaCantwell (D-WA), YeaCarnahan (D-MO), YeaCarper (D-DE), YeaChafee (R-RI), NayCleland (D-GA), YeaClinton (D-NY), YeaCochran (R-MS), YeaCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), NayCorzine (D-NJ), NayCraig (R-ID), YeaCrapo (R-ID), YeaDaschle (D-SD), YeaDayton (D-MN), NayDeWine (R-OH), YeaDodd (D-CT), YeaDomenici (R-NM), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), NayEdwards (D-NC), YeaEnsign (R-NV), YeaEnzi (R-WY), YeaFeingold (D-WI), NayFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFitzgerald (R-IL), YeaFrist (R-TN), YeaGraham (D-FL), NayGramm (R-TX), YeaGrassley (R-IA), YeaGregg (R-NH), YeaHagel (R-NE), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), YeaHelms (R-NC), YeaHollings (D-SC), YeaHutchinson (R-AR), YeaHutchison (R-TX), YeaInhofe (R-OK), YeaInouye (D-HI), NayJeffords (I-VT), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKennedy (D-MA), NayKerry (D-MA), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), YeaLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLeahy (D-VT), NayLevin (D-MI), NayLieberman (D-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLott (R-MS), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMcCain (R-AZ), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), YeaMikulski (D-MD), NayMiller (D-GA), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), NayNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaNickles (R-OK), YeaReed (D-RI), NayReid (D-NV), YeaRoberts (R-KS), YeaRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSantorum (R-PA), YeaSarbanes (D-MD), NaySchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), YeaShelby (R-AL), YeaSmith (R-NH), YeaSmith (R-OR), YeaSnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (R-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), NayStevens (R-AK), YeaThomas (R-WY), YeaThompson (R-TN), YeaThurmond (R-SC), YeaTorricelli (D-NJ), YeaVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (R-VA), YeaWellstone (D-MN), NayWyden (D-OR), Nay
At this late date, there’s no easy alternative to the pending Fiscal Crisis.
With a lame duck President and a Congress with <30% approval ratings already, NOW would the the best time to address and solve the Fiscal Crisis. Tough decisions need to be made, and the best decision will not be popular with most of the population. And with low approval ratings everywhere, what does Congress have to lose? How much lower can their ratings go?
The question is, can the current Democratic Congress solve this problem, or will they continue to neglect to do their jobs. Previous sessions of Congress have failed to address the Fiscal Crisis, will the Democrats be any different? If not, then why vote for them in 2008?
Congress claims to have solved this problem in the 1970’s with massive tax increases. Social Security/Medicare Tax Rates increased from 10.4% to 15.3% and ceilings on earnings taxed were raised that caused the tax to go up by well over 50%. Unfortunately, Congress also just increased coverages for Medicare and Medicaid, and Prescription Drugs, so that the revenue from the tax increase has already been spent by a Congress that simply buys votes by spending taxpayer money.
Long-term solutions beyond the period of the next election year are completely ignored.
At this late date, Solving the Social Security/Medicare problem (with or without partial privatization) is going to result in both a massive benefit reduction and a massive tax increase.
I suspect that the majority in Congress will do the following:
1) Deny there is a problem, and do nothing.
2) Within the next 10 years, once it is made clear to all there is a problem then,
a) Massive Social Security tax increases will be enacted, raising the tax from 15.3% to 25% or more.b) Means testing will take away all Social Security benefits for the “ rich” who have $50,000 or more in retired income and ½ the Social Security benefits for the “almost rich” who have $25,000 to $49,000 in retired income.c) Medicare premiums for the “rich” (>$50k) will be $600 per month. For the “almost rich” ($25k to $49k)will be $300 per month.
3) The poor will continue to receive benefits for awhile, as the top 50% of tax payers pay 99% of all personal income, social security and medicare taxes.
4) The younger generation will stop working, will go on strikes, and/or go on welfare as their take-home share of their earnings falls to 30% or less of what they make. 70% of their income will be taken by the tax man.
5) $5 Trillion annual deficits will then cause the complete economic collapse of the USA economy, with the Greatest Depression starting in 2029, coincidently on the 100-year anniversary of the Great Depression.
Last one in America, please turn out the lights.
Yes, I suspect the current Democratic Congress will not be able to rise to the occassion and address major issues in this country.
Instead, they will hold endless hearings wasting time attacking a lame-duck President who will only be in office for another 18 months.
Want more of the same? Vote for all the Dems in 2008.
Want to make a change, vote out every incumbent in Congress – Dems and Repubs.
Only one point in rebuttal however, Medusa, Congress had to use the information that the President made available and at their disposal in order to make their decisions.
I’m not saying that Congress didn’t play a big fat role in this, because they did, and now a lot of them are trying to make excuses and cover their asses… the time to take REAL action has come, and none of them have the balls to do it, regardless of whether or not the President would VETO, which we all know he would, but at least show that you hear the complaints of the majority of this nation and want to make at least half an effort to fix it…
And also, Congress would never have voted on the resolution at all, had Bush not requested it… so I guess it comes down to the point of who do you want to truly hold responsible, the people voting on doing what they thought was the best course of action based on what they were being told at the time? (Granted, i think many of them failed to do the necessary research to back up Bush’s claims, sort of the blind leading the blind, but at the same time, don’t we need to be able to have some faith that the PRESIDENT is telling us the truth? ) Or do we want to hold responsible the person that provided that information? IE – if you were running a business and, let’s say, an account manager does some research (but not a full investigation) on a potential acquisition and gives you and the rest of the board information that makes this acquistion look good, and based on that information, you and the board decide to go ahead with the purchase, only to find out say three months later, that what you just bought is NOT what the information said it was, who do you hold responsible? The board that voted yes based on the info, or the account manager who didn’t do all the research and gave you faulty information?
Max it’s like beating a dead dog. Bush is finished, he will leave office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any prez. The rating for congress is not exactly stellar either.
I wish people would focus on the problems so we can get to solutions. We cannot do that with everyone pointing fingers and worrying about who shot JR.
The war: Everyone is at fault. Look at how it came about and remember it so it doesn’t happen again.
Your Social Security Issue: It’s not one party that got us into this mess. It took many presidents and many years of congress both making changes which will lead to 2017 disaster.
We need solutions during this difficult time. I think I am disgusted at ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BECAUSE I’M SICK AND TIRED OF THE NAME CALLING!(I voted for candidates from both parties).
Medusa -
Ron Paul 2008
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Watch the videos. Listen to the message…
http://youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
Anon – I’d fire the account manager and give the CEO a fat raise (just kidding on later).
The difference is our constitution holds different, but equal powers for our legislative and executive branches. Not true in the board room.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s not about LIES. It’s about examining the evidence, the course of action(s) taken by members of congress and the president. Democrats made some pretty BOLD statements. They also had access to read the same intelligence reports (not saying they did, but shouldn’t we FIRE them if they voted to send our military to war to die WITHOUT reading the materiel?)
Again, it’s the name-calling and to some extent white washing that’s going on (both parties here too) that sicken me.
Refute these reasons, and studies.
Details and SOURCES are at the linked page.
‘Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea’http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503Reason #1: Today’s insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened.
Reason #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security’s financing problem worse, not better.
Reason #3: Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security’s future finances.
Reason #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.
Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.
Reason #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.
Reason #7: Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes.
Reason #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.
Reason #9: Young people would be worse off.
Reason # 10: Women stand to lose the most.
Reason #11: African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization.
Reason #12: Retirees will not be protected against inflation.”
Change of subject. From the home page here at kansas.com, looks like there’s a real mess up in Valley Center (explosion at Barton Solvents, most of town evacuated).
You can see the smoke from my office on the north end of town (practically Bel Aire)
Ok, Cosmos, so you don’t like partial privatization of Social Security.
What’s your solution? Do nothing? Raise taxes and/or Cut benefits?
EAT THE RICH!
Bush said when he first ran for Congress that Social Security would be be “bankrupt in 1988″ if it weren’t privatized.
He was wrong then. He’s wrong now.
Social Security is the only program currently funded by our government that ISN’T “bankrupt.” That is, it’s the only program that pays its way–in fact generates a surplus–while all other programs rely on deficit spending to cover their shortfall.
2017 will come and go without notice, just like 1988 did. But no doubt the CONs will be talking about Social Security’s imminent collapse “ten years from now.”
Cosmos–
Exactly right.
And the wonderful “success” of Peru’s privatized program?
It sure looked good on paper when people were calculating future earnings.
Turns out though that it pretty much only benefits the people that were well-off to begin with.
What a surprise that is, right?
Ordinary workers are begging to go back to the old system, but hey, too late, you’re screwed.
DENY, DENY, DENY there is a problem. That way you people over 50 get your share, and screw everyone else.
Great solution – hand over the Greatest Depression in History to your kids and grandkids.
Also Ted Kennedy’s approach.
Captain,Which Bush was wrong then, and which is wrong now?
You are totally lost on the FICA financials. It is a “pay as you go program”. Meaning – there are no dollars in a trust fund or somewhere, or revenue stream coming in to fund its obligations. Simple math. By 2017, when the 77 million babyboomers have started snow birding to texas and az, the dollars withheld from your employer and you, will NOT be enough to pay out the obligations to retirees.
Can you show me a surplus? It may come in today, but its all going out tomorrow for earmarks and to fund wars.
Go read it for yourself at the government website.
August 12, 2005, Social Security marks its 70th anniversary. When the program was created in 1935, America was a vastly different nation. We were in the midst of the Great Depression, and at least one-third of all older Americans were dependent upon others for their financial support. Retirement was something that happened when you could no longer work — not something you planned for in advance.When Franklin Roosevelt signed the legislation into law, I’m not sure even he realized the significant role the program would play in the next seven decades. I daresay no one foresaw Social Security becoming part of the fabric of society. Yet that is precisely what happened. And, with good reason. Since its inception, Social Security has paid approximately $8.4 trillion in benefits to nearly 200 million people.As Social Security established a prominent position helping ensure economic security for Americans, the passage of seven decades has brought substantial and unanticipated change, especially to the population the program was created to serve.The number of older Americans living now is greater than anyone could have imagined in 1935. Then, only 7.5 million people were age 65 or older. Today, approximately 36 million, or roughly one in eight people, are older Americans.These numbers are going to continue to grow even more rapidly in the coming decades. In less than three years, America’s 78 million baby boomers will begin to reach retirement age. By the middle of this century, about one of every five Americans will be 65 or older.This increase in life expectancy is a wonderful success story for our nation. More and more Americans are working longer and enjoying a lengthy retirement. But increases in life expectancy mean challenges for Social Security.The Social Security program is largely a pay-as-you-go system — with today’s workers paying for today’s beneficiaries. This system has worked well over the years — especially when there was a relatively large number of workers to support each individual receiving benefits. But today’s demographics are working against us.Our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents can feel confident about the promise of a secure future. Their benefits are secure and will be paid.Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for my teenage son and his friends. I believe Social Security’s 70th anniversary is the perfect opportunity for us to signal to younger generations of Americans that we, as a society, are committed to strengthening this important program — for them.In today’s rapidly developing world, it’s no surprise that government programs also will need to adjust to our changing circumstances.Under President Bush’s leadership, this issue is being discussed on Capitol Hill and in living rooms across the country. Looking ahead, the financing problems facing Social Security, coupled with the program’s complexity and scope, will be challenging to address. Reflecting back, our nation has a proud history of grappling with difficult issues. And we do it best when we work together. I believe Social Security — a program that touches the lives of almost every American — deserves nothing less.Jo Anne B. Barnhart is the Commissioner of Social Security.
Hey Capn’ kin u say TRILLION?
News ReleaseSocial Security Board of Trustees Issues Annual ReportLong-Range Financing Challenges ContinueThe Social Security Board of Trustees today released its annual report on the financial health of the Social Security Trust Funds. The 2007 Trustees Report shows slight improvement in the projected financial status of the Social Security program from last year.In the 2007 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:• The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2017 — the same as the estimate in last year’s report.• The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2041 — one year later than the projection in last year’s report.• The cost of $5.3 billion to administer the program in 2006 was a very low 1.0 percent of total expenditures.• Over the 75-year period, the Trust Funds would require additional revenue equivalent to $4.7 trillion in today’s dollars to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation is about $100 billion higher than the amount estimated last year.
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee07-pr.htm
It must be admitted that Social Security was never “actuarially sound”, as it was, and continues to be, a “pay as you go” program. Any surpluses are transient. There is a crisis looming “out there”, whether in 2017, 2024, or some other date in the future.
One partial solution is to adjust the retirement age at which one is entitled to receive full retirement benefits to an age which bears some rational relationship to age 65 to the life expectancy in 1935. Another partial solution is to remove the “cap” over which no FICA tax is withheld. Another thing to look at is taxing Social Security benefits on the same basis as that of a private retirement annuity, that is, the one-half of the total contribution made by the employee is recovered income tax free, as that has already been subject to income taxation. The one-half contributed by the employer is taxed, as that contribution was a deduction to the employer for income tax purposes, and never subjected to income taxes. Of course, all earnings on the funds contributed have never been subject to income taxation, so the earnings portion on both halves would be fully subject to income taxation as well.
With one-half the self-employment tax an “above the line” deduction in recent years, the same analysis might be made on those who have paid the SE tax in years where the deduction has been available. There would need to be some adjustments to account for those years where no such deduction was available, of course.
I’m overly simplifying and generalizing here, but I think the gist is clear.
Add: With the income tax revenue collected on the said benefits to be used solely for funding current and future OASDI benefits. I’m not holding my breath.
This social security discussion is a discussion between those that believe they should hand their money over to a benevolent, and omnipotent government, and those who believe they would be better off keeping their own money and making life decisions for themselves.
I believe the is the crux of it.Those two will surely have to meet somewhere in the middle to resolve the financial issue (and there undisputed accounting audits which clearly demonstrate the problem is coming).
It is important that both sides be honest and objective to at least acknowledge the problem. Without that acknowledgement, the problem exacerbates the longer we wait for reality to set in.
Both parties in Congress fully appreciate this problem. But neither side wants to bring up this political hot potato.
For now, they have their heads stuck in the sand.
I can understand why Max is trying to get people to wake up and smell the coffee. What I cannot understand is why one party chooses to not only ignore the math, but to place negatives on anyone else who question it.
Trolls? Making a living on the internet? Say it isnt so…
“For this campaign season, it looks like someone is offering the services of trolls and sock puppets for hire.”
much more including clients at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/9137/01266
Vaughn those are all options which could be considered and have been discussed, by congress and the president before. There is merit to all of them.
You don’t mention cutting benefits? All these options are on the revenue stream side, which I agree need to be considered. But at some point, leadership needs to say enough is enough. The addition of the prescription drug benefit hastened the projected red date. We cannot keep adding more programs – without new funding sources.
I do not agree with raising the retirement age, at least in the short term. Actuarial tables produced by the government and used in many areas to include insurance, do show Americans living longer. Much is said in the press regarding life expectancy now being higher. But it is important to notice that is for babies born THIS year. The retirement age, if raised, should be based on actrary tables – not an arbitary number which applies to those born in 1950, for example, or 1965. In my own case, my race, sex, and date of birth places my date still closer to 65 than 74. And, by the same token, maybe women should have a OLDER RETIREMENT DATE since they live longer than men?
I’ll vote for raising or removing the cap, just as long as the more I pay in – the more I receive still applies. Otherwise, this is just robin hood striking again.
I’d even favor offering people the chance to OPT OUT of FICA altogether. I’m midlife. I’d sacrafice all I’ve paid in – if the government would just let me invest the combined 15% my employer and I pay in for my remaining earning years.
Before shying away from some form of personal savings accounts, please look at the funds that were proposed for Americans to choose from. They are available to over 2 million government employees (including congress) and military today as a form of 401 called TSP (Thrift Savings Plan). Proven track records of earnings ranging from small 4.5% for the conservative to aggressive 26% for younger investors. There are a myriad of details which could be worked out to satisfy both sides on this account issue (if they are willing to meet in the middle).One size does not have to fit all.
But if you raise the retirement age, or lift the cap, with no other adjustments, one size does fit all – for good and bad.
That answer is simply to tax the heck out of America.
Social Security paid out more than it took in several times in its past history.
That’s not necessarily cause for panic.
VT’s suggestion of taxing ALL income (above the 90 K “cap”) would definitely raise a lot of money and it would all come from the well-off, the rich, and the super-rich (meaning: THAT will never happen).
Not only that, but if all income were taxed, then pay-outs should be much higher to the people who paid in so much more.
You could have people getting a million dollars a year from the gov’t.
The cap insures that pay-outs stay low because the pay-INs have been relatively low.
Privatization is a way for the libertarian right, who have always hated SS and opposed it from the very beginning, to finally destroy it.
What has worked magnificently for over 70 years will work just as well into the future.
The only thing that threatens SS is the incredible national debt we’ve racked up starting with Reagan and continuing on with the two Bushes.
No one can project out to 2042.
No one.
Period.
Rat’s will eat their own young to avoid starvation.
The older generation is attempting to do the same, to take whatever they can from Social Security before it goes broke.
The generation war will start when the young recognize this fact, and attempt to defend themselves. The older generation continues to spread its lies about the solvency of Social Security to avoid alerting the younger generations to take action now, while they still can.
I’m not sure the older generation will win this war, if indeed, they don’t agree to spread the burden of solving the Fiscal Social Security Crisis across all generations.
If it comes down to one generation vs another, there will be an economic war when the young revolt. The young will realize it’s the older generation that created Social Security and created the mess we are in.
Yet, it’s this same older generation that refuses to take responsibility for the failed Socialist policy that it created and expanded.
hey capn, would you elaborate on the threat the national debt has to social security? Enlighten us please.
Rat’s will eat their own young to avoid starvation.
The older generation is attempting to do the same, to take whatever they can from Social Security before it goes broke.
The generation war will start when the young recognize this fact, and attempt to defend themselves. The older generation continues to spread its lies about the solvency of Social Security to avoid alerting the younger generations to take action now, while they still can.
I’m not sure the older generation will win this war, if indeed, they don’t agree to spread the burden of solving the Fiscal Social Security Crisis across all generations.
If it comes down to one generation vs another, there will be an economic war when the young revolt. The young will realize it’s the older generation that created Social Security and created the mess we are in.
Yet, it’s this same older generation that refuses to take responsibility for the failed Socialist policy that it created and expanded.
On Social Security, I don’t think anyone here is in a panic Captn America.
When do you suggest our government start discussing it?
When do you suggest the citizens start discussing it?
So Max, when the “generational war” starts, will you young whippersnappers fix the antigay hate amendments to the state constitutions? I mean, that is also a generational issue.
I’d gladly give up my partner’s social security survivor benefits if you would, please.
Oh, wait a minute, if things remain as they are, I wont get those anyway. Unlike straight married folks…
Oh and Max, while you youngsters are at it, would you PUL-EEEZE legalize marijuana and help solve the prison population growth problems as well?
Thanks
Is it fair that many, especailly African American men, will die before age 62 and not collect a dime in Social Security?
Is Social Security like a lottery – in that those who live a long time MIGHT be able to collect as much as they paid in?
Earnings? There are no Earnings unless you collect back every dime of the principal that you paid in to Social Security.
Shouldn’t there be a survivability feature that ensures that the estate of the deceased at least is paid back for what he or she paid in, in order to pass his own money on to the inheritors of his or her estate?
No, Social Security is one BIG unfair lie – nothing but a TAX, not an investment at all in Social Security for many who don’t live to see a dime of it.
I’m tired of our Government lying to us. Vote out ALL INCUMBENTS in 2008. It is time for a change.
Oh, and let’s not even TALK about the water problems we’re leaving you guys.
The boomer motto? “It’s good to be king!”
Viva la youngsters!
Is it fair that many, especailly African American men, will die before age 62 and not collect a dime in Social Security?
Is Social Security like a lottery – in that those who live a long time MIGHT be able to collect as much as they paid in?
Earnings? There are no Earnings unless you collect back every dime of the principal that you paid in to Social Security.
Shouldn’t there be a survivability feature that ensures that the estate of the deceased at least is paid back for what he or she paid in, in order to pass his own money on to the inheritors of his or her estate?
No, Social Security is one BIG unfair lie – nothing but a TAX, not an investment at all in Social Security for many who don’t live to see a dime of it.
I’m tired of our Government lying to us. Vote out ALL INCUMBENTS in 2008. It is time for a change.
Is it fair that many, especailly African American men, will die before age 62 and not collect a dime in Social Security?
Is Social Security like a lottery – in that those who live a long time MIGHT be able to collect as much as they paid in?
Earnings? There are no Earnings unless you collect back every dime of the principal that you paid in to Social Security.
Shouldn’t there be a survivability feature that ensures that the estate of the deceased at least is paid back for what he or she paid in, in order to pass his own money on to the inheritors of his or her estate?
No, Social Security is one BIG unfair lie – nothing but a TAX, not an investment at all in Social Security for many who don’t live to see a dime of it.
I’m tired of our Government lying to us. Vote out ALL INCUMBENTS in 2008. It is time for a change.
Farmgrrl,
I just forwarded you an email about water issues.
Also – check your voicemail, please.
Why not go after those special interest groups who havent ever been required to pay into FICA?
You know, like the people who grow all our food, and the people who ship it all on the railroads, and the preachers in all the churches. Go after those bozos and see how much they want to pay into FICA.
The excess FICA contributions that compose the social security trust fund: where is that money?
The answer is that it was lent to other governmental agencies, which spent it.
So when it comes time for SSA to ask for those loans to be repaid, where will that money come from?
Ksframgrrl, you’ve made an excellent case for the government to stop forcing us to buy its retirement program.
Wouldn’t it be better if individuals planned for their own retirement, selecting plans or arrangements that provide the benefits they want and need, instead of what the government gives (and takes) from us?
Well Chas, do you think there is any money in it? If there is, then the gobbermint problee already dun looked at dat.
Sorry for the double posts. Have no idea how that happened.
Sorry for the double posts.
see how much they want to pay into FICA.
Posted by: chas. | July 17, 2007 at 01:37 PM
>>>>>
OK… how the hell did I get posted on here… I have been gone for 2 hours…. NO WAY I posted anything like that….
Yes, I have been concentrating on revenue enhancements, as benefit reductions, freezes, etc. are really political non-starters.
Without belaboring the issue further, it is instructive to recall the historical setting for the enactment of the Social Security law itself, and while we all hope there are safeguards in place that will prevent that from recurring, isn’t that at least a tempering argument against total privatization?
See, e.g., Enron for an instructive case study on what can happen to 401(k) plans. That can happen again, easily, IMHO. See also what is happening with private plans and the involvement of the PBGC therewith which, I believe, raises another cautionary note.
Capt America, you think anything with income above the social security cap is RICH??????
It’s only $97,500, and already indexed for inflation.
I make that, but I am NOT RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Three kids, a dog, a cat, two car garage, three cars, one braces, two in college (KU ROCK CHALK).
I am far, far from rich. And I PAY ENOUGH!!!
I believe we got us a low down, good for nothing nic stealin varmint in these here parts… I reckon who it might be, and why??? Hmmmmmm
half full, I think under the hierarchy set forth by the good Capn, you are merely “well off”. :-)
With two in college, surely there is some eligibility for need-based financial aid at your income level. Oh, I forgot; your students are enrolled at one of the penurious state institutions.
I will take Give em Hell Harry Reid anyday over diaper wearing prostitute using Vitter!
“Wouldn’t it be better if individuals planned for their own retirement, selecting plans or arrangements that provide the benefits they want and need, instead of what the government gives (and takes) from us?
Posted by: anonymous
Yes, anonymous, it would be. I did a paper in 1978 projecting the cost of life insurance + retirement annuity + disability insurance, over an earning lifetime, and guess what?
The cost was lower just to buy insurance for everyone than it was to keep taxing and supporting the government “infrastructure”.
But… here is where I’m going to support a tax. Not for me, or other responsible folks, but to plan for the human nature of being a grasshopper, not an ant.
It aint gonna happen that everyone will plan or behave wisely. So… why not call a spade a bloody shovel, tax it at a flat rate for all income, and use it as a floor, not a ceiling, for retirement. We’re gonna pay anyway, so why not admit it and just do it.
I mean, I’m not going to let little old ladies and men, widows and children and the differently abled eat cat food, no matter how foolish or how unlucky they were.
I know you think that smaks of nanny state, but I’m actually taking the opposite approach. We know we will always have the poor among us. Why not do what we can? And I hardly think ANY of it is incentive to do nothing. That’s just nut case thinking on the part of folks who’ve never tried it.
Hmmm, and while we’re negotiating…
I’ll see your booting bush with a booting of reid. And I’ll raise you a pelosi if you promise the bush booting also includes dead eye dick cheney.
Simple solution, Lock Box. Keep SS money for what it is paid in for. Granted you’d have to raise taxes to pay for current spending, which should include the Iraq budget. Other programs need to be pay go, not SS.
I have a question for the lawyers out there.
My daughter who is not 18, just began working for a company. This company has a lot of turnover. They were 5 days late paying her and when they did pay her, they paid her cash.
Now they say they’re not going to officially put her on the payroll until they know she’ll be there awhile, which means cash. I feel this is wrong. Aren’t they supposed to supply her with paystubs?
It’s doubtful that I’ll make it to 65 too as a smoker, but that doesn’t change how I feel about paying in.
Vaughn wrote:”With two in college, surely there is some eligibility for need-based financial aid at your income level. Oh, I forgot; your students are enrolled at one of the penurious state institutions.”
Don’t even get me started on the governments FAFSA Forms!!! That’s the form you complete to see if you rate any FREE MONEY for college (grants/aid). Lesson 1 came with oldest daughter. We filled out the form. They want everything about you, blood type, facial expressions, and where every penny you have ever earned, invested, salary, etc… must be listed. Then they threaten you under of penalty of law with execution if you LIE on the form.I didn’t. So I didn’t get a dime of assistance. Seems I should have bought that bass boat a few years go, an SUV, and a bigger house. Instead, my wife and I saved every extra penny for our kids education. Alas, because we were like the ants and planned ahead, invested wisely, and didn’t live in debt: WE RATED ZERO. Now, that’s not too bad. My kids got some brains from my better half’s side of the family, so with their good grades, test scores, they got some scholarships. But here is something that STILL irks me: If you don’t rate the FREE MONEY (Grants), you also DO NOT RATE THE LOW RATE EDUCATION LOANS. Now that’s simply not fair. It’s one thing to say I am rich and I don’t rate FREE MONEY. But I gotta borrow money just like everyone else for two kids in college. But Nooooooooo, FAFSA says I don’t rate. Then along came kid number two! I thought I’d be “IN THERE” for sure. Paying two tuitions, soriety, books, fees – I GOTTA BE GOOD TO GO FOR FREE MONEY. Nope. Nada again. Not even reduced interest education loans.
Lesson learned: Live life to the fullest. Do NOT save for a rainy day. You are either rich to go to college on daddies bank account, or you are POOR or illegal. Middle American, I got nothing for help.
That’s why now I am onlyHALF FULL
PS: KU Tuition went up 125% during that time (over 5 years). AND NOW they come up with some sort of freeze they are discussing.
Vaughn, you got my motor running.
And another thing. SAVINGS BONDS FOR COLLEGE. When you don’t make a lot of money, but you want to save, the savings bonds were a financial vehicle we used. In 1990 our feds decided YOU CAN USE THE SAVINGS BONDS FOR COLLEGE AND NOT PAY INTEREST. Great! I got 5-7% return for about ten years. Then I advanced at work. Then my kids went to college. So I says to myself, “Self, LET’S GO CASH THEM BONDS!” We did. Little did I know: Sorry the interest exclusion is INCOME BASED. So now I made too much to exclude the income BUT it counted for FAFSA and the IRS says it also counted against the HOPE and Life Time Earning College Credits.
You simply cannot win.
Lesson: Don’t buy Savings Bonds, spend it all.
KSGrrl–
Correct. The radical right acts as though no one knows what would happen without SS.
We know precisely what would happen. 40 percent of retirees were living below the poverty line before SS was enacted. Right now, 40 percent of retirees WOULD BE living below the poverty line if they didn’t have SS.
I’ve often heard (can’t verify it) that most people in the US right have a negative net worth.
And these are the people we expect to plan their own retirements.
Face it. Sometimes people need help from the government.
Nothing is stopping you from saving and investing for your own retirement in addition to SS.
Look at our own Half Full. He by himself makes twice as much as the median income for an entire family in the United States (which is about 45,000 dollars according to the US Census http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincearnersandstate.html but he’s “not rich, dammit.”
Think about it, Half Full. If it’s hard for you, how much harder it must be for the average person . . .
Hey Vaughn,
I just looked up “penurious”. You can’t say that about KANSAS SCHOOLS! You must be communist or maybe a Missourian.
But hey, at least I got to fool myself into believing my college robbery bucks to KU contributed to the great basketball seasons I have enjoyed while my girls went through school.
Capt America,
There you go again. Where did I post that I make that income by myself? Yeah, I got a better half (with her I’m full). I did’t get those two daughters from cream puffs.
And we work our butts off!
Half Full, I’m quite familiar with FAFSA forms, as I am with the alternative CSS forms (not used here by the State schools). Don’t blame the FAFSA for the inability to obtain the low interest loans, blame Congress. And, while you’re being hit hard here, the purpose of the Pell Grant, SEOG, Perkins and Stafford loan programs is to allow low income students to attend college. Should there be more done for the middle class? Sure, there should be. BTW, if you know and aren’t reluctant to share, what was the EFC when both were (are) in school?
And I don’t give a rat’s -ss about the “average” person. If they WANT what I have – let them WORK FOR IT.
I don’t OWE THEM ONE DIME.
I have no compassion for them. Every man for himself. And the Titanic lesson should be that the rich get the life vests. It you are too poor, lazy, stupid, or even just simply disadvantaged -
you drown.
Half Full, very little of the money paid to KU benefited the basketball program (if any). That, my friend, is what the Williams Fund is for.
Vaughn,
Fine give the money to the poor. Once you figure out that by definition that is 30% of America (or higher), then you will figure out that I am NOT RICH.
But Hillary, Obama, and all the rest consider my income RICH.
What you are really saying is: we have so many we want to classify as poor, we need to drop down and rob from the middle class. We didn’t get enough juice from the top 5%.
All of them: A hand stretched forth full of nothing but a mouth full of gimmee.
JUST DON’T LET YOUR PARTY CALL US RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Half Full–
Whoa, thanks for that crystal clear definition of what it means to be a Republican.
And while you’re not giving a rat’s ass about the average person, the people wealthier than you aren’t giving a rat’s ass about you either.
See how it works.
Every man for himself. Yeah, I think they call that anarchy.
“Nothing is stopping you from saving and investing for your own retirement in addition to SS.Face it. Sometimes people need help from the government.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 17, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Yes, paying 15.3% of my income to Social Security, 25% to Federal Income Taxes, 10% to State Income taxes does STOP me from saving and investing for my own retirement.
And you are correct, face it, many lazy SOB’s take pride in pretending to not be able to take care of themselves. I would cower in shame if I couldn’t pay my own way in life.
America – Land of the Socialists
I know that. That’s why I said I fool myself.
I suppose whoever complained about me and asked for me to be blocked was successful for a little while. ;)
I guess if you post views that the Wichita Eagle doesn’t like, you get banned (cough) from their blog.
The only reason others are not banned, because those on the right are man enough to take the profane slurs the left gives on a multi-daily basis and take it.
We know this is just a blog, but evidently, the timid Left feels threaten so they try to shut up the voices on the Right.
It ain’t gonna happen.
How come kansasfarmgrll is not banned for posting a two day rampage against GMC, outting his profession, outing his place of work and posting his real name.
How come J R isn’t banned for posting real life information on GMC?
How come CapnAmerica isn’t banned for trying to out me on a daily basis revealing my identity?
I think the Wichita Eagle and namely Phillip Brownlee are a bunch of hypocrites listening to these maniacs who whine and try to get people banned.
Freedom of the press and speech Phillip? Yeah right, only if you and your kind views are heard right? What a hypocrite!
And what’s really funny, is that the left is crying for equal time by re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine. LMAO! What a bunch of loser hypocrites.
BTW, I wouldn’t call you rich.
I’d call you upper middle class.
To be minimally “rich” these days, you’d have to make about a quarter million a year, I’d say.
You know Max, if we cut off the Unearned Income Credit, a whole bunch of them would have to go to work.
Maybe they could replace some of those illegal migrant workers picking lettuce.
Works for me!
Missed that the first time, Half Full; my apologies.
Pretty judgemental Captain UNAmerica. That’s what you get with liberals, God like power hunger.
Who decides who is wealthy, rich, poor?
Is it you?
You better check your two front runners and get your koolaid and party tape right. The party line is different from yours. (you might get banned)
Dems won’t let Socialist welfare end, especially the Unearned Income Credit.
Socialism may just have to expand to the point of complete and total failure, before people realize that approach doesn’t work.
No one reads the lessons of history, we must repeat this mistake again. Meanwhile, our kids and grandkids will pay the heavy price.
Normally as everyone knows I do not dignify anything the TROLL says with a response.
But just so there’s no misunderstanding: I am not interested in nor have I ever attempted to find out the TROLL’s identity in real life.
I have spent some time and succeeded in proving that when he claims he never posted under other nics, he lies.
Specifically JM, Uncle William, Eier, Republican, RepubliKhan, Khan, Khahn, and Kansas.
Probably also Original Steve, Gail, and Ahmad the Turkman.
That is all.
We now return to regularly scheduled programming.
I’ve got a family of 5 living in my house (in addition to my own family) that we are supporting by 95%. He has been out of work for 6 months ‘living’ off of unemployment. I put living in quotes because they could not make ends meet. Now they are homeless and he has JUST started looking for work.
Unfortunately there are WAY too many people in America like this. I feel like this is American reality. Those of us that work hard and try to maintain are bridled with those content to live off of the government.
Republikansan,
It is interesting that the liberals cry fowl about Bush stepping all over the constitution,
Yet they have the audacity to want to kill Free Speech.
They cry when any opponent posts here. Whine like babies. What will they do when they get the free speech stricken down? Who will they talk to or disagree with? No one. Big Brother will truly have arrived.
Fairness Doctrine, like the prevention of negative campaign advertisments are steps toward total fascism.
Now we know. The border fence, which would have at least been a step toward border security and stemming illegal immigration, has been stalled for years by environmental whackos over wildlife refuges, which might be endangered by a fence. Isn’t anybody worried about national security being endangered?9 miles of fence have been completed in the San Diego area since 1996, after years of bureaucratic straining, with 5 miles more to go, including Smuggler’s Gulch, where it is feared a bird stopover might be disrupted.
Oh really Capn? We’ll have to see about that. :)
Tell me Capn, what proof do you have that I am any of those posters you mentioned?
Got some? I didn’t think so.
Right Galahad? (aka CapnAmerica) :)
Hey SolDevVB,
Did he just start looking for work because his unemployment is about to run out?
Half. Nope. Because it DID run out. Too far behind in rent and utilities to save his place. So his family is homeless and moved into my house.
Okay, last post to the TROLL, I promise.
Troll–
If you wouldn’t post porno spam, you probably wouldn’t get banned.
I’m just saying . . .
Now, back to “ignore” mode.
Instead of apologizing for making threats about breaking into peoples’ place of business, we hear parsing from the RepuliKan about he did not say “I”, but instead “we”. Real nice.
I congratulate the Eds for taking the position they did. While the kahn is whining about his “different” opinions being silenced, if he in fact was blocked, I’d say it was more likely about his threats of crimes rather than bolviating, that got him in trouble.
Will not miss that particular representative of the party of responsibility – I have to say.
So Capn, you’re saying I post porno spam?
I think that is grounds for a law suit.
How would you feel homeless and without any money in your accounts? :)
Posted by: Half Full | July 17, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Half. Nope. Because it DID run out. Too far behind in rent and utilities to save his place. So his family is homeless and moved into my house.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY THE FREE CHEESE!!! The guy had to go look for work. Not the first day he received his free money – the LAST day. This is what is wrong with socialism in America. YOU DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM TAKING THE INITIATIVE AND WORKING~!
“Instead of apologizing for making threats about breaking into peoples’ place of business, we hear parsing from the RepuliKan about he did not say “I”, but instead “we”. Real nice.”Posted by: Steven Davis | July 17, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Writing a tongue-in-cheek statement “We should rifle Tom’s office” is the same as breaking into someone’s business?
What State Law does that come under Steven Davis?
Or are you just bloviating? :)
You’re a freaking liar, Troll. How do you intend to “rifle” my office when I’m “not here,” as your deleted post suggested, unless you break in?
Effing troll.
PS: I did _not_ report your threat, nor did I ask that you be banned or in any way prevented from posting here. If that’s what the Eagle editors have blocked you for, they’ve done it on their own.
I needs me some mo gubment cheese. Gotsta go stand in da line. Y’all folks be good.
Not to mention the troll’s LIES, such as about the Sierra Club,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-713.html#comment-75802340
Bye, Sollie.
Whoever spams the old boards with porno links would be first on my list to ban.
The fact that the TROLL also got banned makes one go “hmmm . . . “
How did you know they were porno links?
And now for something different.
If Wild West World is closed for bankruptcy, Why is Terry Fox still holding services at Johnny Western Theater?
And I see we’re still feeding the troll.
With thousands of spammers on the Web, the Capn thinks I’m the one who posts porno spam on the WE Board.
So, I guess I can write Phillip Brownlee now and get CapnAmerica banned from the boards because he says I distribute porno links. I think I will.
If Phillip Brownlee is man enough to post publically why he banned me, then I’ll stop posting.
Or perhaps he should let Galahad (aka CapnAmerica) steal writerdogs nic again and post as writerdog, even though he (Capn) misspelled the name. :)
Notice how the left and Phillip Brownlee ignored that case of nic stealing.
Perhaps, XXX, WWW, as DIP, is not rejecting an executory contract with Summit Church (the lease of the space, I suspect), to receive the lease payments. Anyone else?
Hah, clever, pherron.
Ya got me!
Actually, the names of the sites are in the links–they don’t make one wonder what kind of sites they are . . .
NOBODY GIVES A DAMN ABOUT ANONYMOUS TROLLING.
IT IS MERELY GRAFFITI
YOU DON’T TALK TO GRAFFITI DO YOU?
Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the WorldBy CORNELIA DEANIn the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
The book caused a stir earlier this year when a French translation materialized at high schools, universities and museums in France. Until then, creationist literature was relatively rare in France, according to Armand de Ricqles, a professor of historical biology and evolutionism at the College de France. Scientists spoke out against the book, he said in an e-mail message, and “thanks to the highly centralized public school system in France, it was possible to organize that the books sent to lycées would not be made available to children.”
So far, no similar response is emerging in the United States. “In our country we are used to nonsense like this,” said Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox.
He said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.
“If he sees a picture of an old fossil crab or something, he says, ‘See, it looks just like a regular crab, there’s no evolution,’ ” Dr. Padian said. “Extinction does not seem to bother him. He does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.”
Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said he and his colleagues in the life sciences had all received copies. When he called friends at the University of Colorado and the University of Chicago, they had the books too, he said. Scientists at Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia and others have also received them.
“I think he must have sent it to every full professor in the medical school,” said Kathryn L. Calame, a microbiologist at the Columbia University medical school who received a copy. “The genetics department, the biochem department, micro — everybody I talked to had it.”
While they said they were unimpressed with the book’s content, recipients marveled at its apparent cost. “If you went into a bookstore and saw a book like this, it would be at least $100,” said Dr. Miller, an author of conventional biology texts. “The production costs alone are astronomical. We are talking millions of dollars.”
And then there’s postage. Dr. Padian said his copy was shipped by a company called SDS Worldwide, which has an office in Illinois. Calls and e-mail messages to the company were not returned, but Dr. Padian said he spoke to someone there who told him SDS had received a cargo-container-size shipment of books, “with everything prepaid and labeled. It just went all over the country.”
Fatih Sen, who heads the United States office of Global Impex, a company that markets Islamic books, gifts and other products, including “Atlas,” would not comment on its distribution, except to describe the book as “great” and refer questions to the publisher, Global Publishing of Istanbul. Repeated attempts by telephone and e-mail to reach the concern, or Mr. Yahya, were unsuccessful.
In the book and on his Web site (www.harunyahya.com), Mr. Yahya says he was born in Ankara in 1956, and grew up and was educated in Turkey. He says he seeks to unmask what the book calls “the imposture of evolutionists” and the links between their scientific views and modern evils like fascism, communism and terrorism. He says he hopes to encourage readers “to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of God.”
He adds that he seeks “no material gain” from his publications, most of which are available free or at relatively low cost.
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The effort seems particularly odd given the mailing list. Both Dr. Padian and Dr. Miller testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover, Penn., lawsuit that successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in schools there. Other recipients include Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University who has been active on behalf of school board candidates who support the teaching of evolution and science museums that accept evolution as the foundation for modern biology.
“I don’t know what to make of it, quite honestly,” said Laddie Elwell, the director of the Headwaters Science Center in Bemidji, Minn., which she said received a dozen copies. Chuck Deeter, a staff member, said he and his colleagues might use the books’ fossil photographs in their programs on Darwin, which he said can be a hard sell in a region where many people are fundamentalist Christians with creationist beliefs.
Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.
“Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
Perhaps as a result, he said, Mr. Yahya’s books and other publications have won him attention in Islamic areas. “This is a guy with some influence,” Dr. Edis said, “unfortunately for mainstream science.”
Dr. Miller agreed. He said he regularly received e-mail messages from people questioning evolution, with an increasing number coming from Turkey, Lebanon and other areas in the Middle East, most citing Mr. Yahya’s work.
That’s troubling, he said, because Mr. Yahya’s ideas “cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude that is certainly not going to help the Islamic world catch up to the West.”
As the scientists ponder what to do with the book — for many, it is too beautiful for the trash bin but too erroneous for their shelves — they also speculate about the motives of its distributors.
“My hypothesis is, like all creationists, they believe that they have a startling truth that the public has been shielded from, and that if they present the facts, in quotation marks, that the scales will fall from the eyes and the charade of evolution will be revealed,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which fights the teaching of creationism in public schools. “These people are really serious about this.”
That may be, Dr. Miller said, but it’s also possible “that Harun Yahya and his people have decided that there are plenty of Muslim people in the United States who need to hear this message.”
In his e-mail message, Dr. de Ricqles said some worried that the book was directed at the Muslim population of France as a strategy to “destabilize” poor, predominantly immigrant suburbs “where a large population of youngsters of Moslem faith would be an ideal target for propaganda.”
But despite its wide distribution, Dr. Padian predicted that the book would have little impact in the United States. “We are used to books that are totally wrongheaded about science and confuse science and religion,” he said. “That’s politics.”
Hey, it’s TRACY.
Welcome back, dude.
Thanks, VT!
What’s a DIP?
DIP=Debtor in Possession. In a Chapter 11 case, often the Petitioner, along with its attorneys, asks to be the Debtor in Possession and act with reference to the assets, etc. much as a Trustee in Bankruptcy would.
VT – i think you are correct. Also, if Fox is paying rent and the operation does not require much in the way of expenditures by WWW why not continue the lease?
Are the kids done on the blog yet?
Seriously, CapnAmerica, Kanzan, Tom, Steven Davis, Cosmos.
You sound like a bunch of first graders.
Why can’t we all just join hands together now, and sing: “Kum-Ba-Ya, My Lord, Kum-Ba-Ya!”
Capn America Wrote:Whoa, thanks for that crystal clear definition of what it means to be a Republican.
And while you’re not giving a rat’s ass about the average person, the people wealthier than you aren’t giving a rat’s ass about you either.
See how it works.”
Where in the constitution of this great Nation does it say I have to care? Where does it say I have to provide for my fellow man? Where does it say a nation should provide free cheese (that cost a mint, by the way, long story I’ll post later).
Keep it simple and explain where in our founding fathers writings it says we have to rob from the rich to give to the lazy?
It used to be that a person on welfare was ashamed. A person getting WIC was embarrassed. Someone on unemployment was rare and they didn’t stay there long.Not anymore. Now they brag about their RIGHTS to these things. We OWE it to them.
Where did that come from? What changed in our country?
O.K, if you guys are not going to kiss and make up:
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaKumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaKumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s laughing, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s laughing, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s laughing, Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s crying, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s crying, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s crying, Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s praying, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s praying, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s praying, Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s singing, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s singing, Lord, kumbayaSomeone’s singing, Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbayaKumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaKumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaKumbaya, my Lord, kumbayaO Lord, kumbaya
Too bad the critics of social programs do not know anything about why they came to be law in the first place.
Do you know how sick and suffering the elderly were before Medicare? The facts are online if ya care to search.
Do you know how poor and sick and STARVING the elderly were before Social Security? It is in the history books.
For you to compare people to rats eating their young! Shame!
Why you can believe the richest nation on Earth cannot and should not help the weakest of our own!! How un-American.
To let people go without regular affordable healthcare in a country with state of the art technology!! Frr shame! And it is counter productive, as recent studies have shown.
Why do these posting Repubicans hate America so much?
Quick, somebody call Hogwarts, and see if they have a pest control spray for Trolls…
You ain’t seen nothing yet foul priest of demons.
Chas,
Perhaps WE Blog will switch to a registration system, if the troll keeps causing problems.
That would be cool cosmos, I can set up 300 IP numbers right now along with untraceable encrypted emails to go with them.
Bring on the registration system.
Ooooohhhhhh a professional troll too…. the most dangerous kind…. one who has no respect for authority…. an anarchist, no loss…. one of those strong kansas values….
be vewy afwaid….
Ooooohhhhhh a professional troll too…. the most dangerous kind…. one who has no respect for authority…. an anarchist, no loss…. one of those strong kansas values….Posted by: chas. | July 17, 2007 at 08:11 PM
So says chas hiding behind an anonymous name and mocks those who use anonymous methods.
What a hypocrite!
You know, immigrants coming to America could quickly tell the difference between the rich and the poor.
You were either skinny or you were rich.
Now, the poor and the tired are no longer hungry. 50% or more of the poor are obese. Find one case (except for child abuse) where any American starved to death since 1900.
David B | July 17, 2007 at 07:09 PMWhy do these posting Repubicans hate America so much?
Why do these liberal democrats want to DESTROY America so much?
You have absolutely no right under the constitution nor under God to steal my hard earned money to support your socialist programs.
You MAY use your freedom to spend your money to help the weak, the poor, the starving, and the sick.
BUT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW I SPEND MINE.
The Soviet Union did not loose the cold war. They quietly took over America via liberals. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Karl Marx.
YOu are sick and our country is dying. Freedom is going, going, gone.
Chas,
Perhaps WE Blog will switch to a registration system, if the troll keeps causing problems.
Posted by: cosmos
Oh you OWN this BLOG? Your opinions and posts are of higher VALUE than those who tend to disagree with you?
Trample freedom of speech by hiding behind a monitor. Chicken.Buck,buck, buck, buuuuuuuck!@
Sniffle sniffle, stop it, you are hurting my feelings. You, you are UnAmerica. No, you HATE America.
How dare you call me chicken!
I’m, I’m going to tell my mommie.Oops I mean the monitor.
Hey EAGLE!!! YOU WHO EAGLE!!!
It’s funny when the Libs get beaten down, how quickly they resort to censorship.
If they are so proud of being Socialists, they should welcome any opposing views and be able to calmly and rationally explain why Socialism is such a good thing.
I don’t know any conservatives that hate America.
I know several Liberals that do hate America.
I don’t know any conservatives who would let the poor starve to death.
I know many conservatives who are for limited welfare when needed to prevent starvation.
I know many liberals who are for taking as much as they can from hard-working Americans not just to pay for the food for the poor, but to also pay for the house they live in, the clothes they wear, the health care they don’t work for, the heating and cooling bill, free public transportation, free school lunches.
It’s to the point where those on Section 8 live in brand new 3 bedroom condos, which would cost a working American $1,500 per month, yet they get it for free.
Many poor live better than me.
Socialism doesn’t work guys. Show me one socialist country that has prospered for 100 years or more.
Say Chas, you living off the taxpayer now that you are unemployed and your wife is sick?
You could probably get disability for the wife, and if you fake a headache or a backache, you can get disability too.
Then comes food stamps, heating assistance, etc…
Oh, and if you find a church that wants you, there’s an avenue for private welfare for you too.
The United Socialist States of America will see:
1. All wealth redistributed from the righ (to be defined) to the voting supporting masses of low income peoples.
2. Property of the sinfully rich will be taken by the state and appropriately distributed to the needy.
3. Evil Oil Companies will be nationalized. It’s for the peoples good.
4. We must control the air waves. We must go beyond the fairness doctrine. We must crush all who voice disent with the liberal view.
5. The military is to be withdrawn from all foreign soil. We will need them to patrol the American streets.
6. Religion far right wingnuts will be banned everywhere. They are criminal, you know. Daring to put their God before the country.
If the hard-working American taxpayers quit working for 6 months, the non-working Socialists get very hungry and may have to actually get jobs, start paying taxes to pay for the conservatives who sign-up for welfare for the first time in their lives.
If the Socialists quit working….
Never mind, forgot where I was going with that point.
Oh, yeah, we wouldn’t notice any difference would we?
7. We must control all health care in the nation. It will seal our control of the masses. We will allow healthcare only to those who conform to our beliefs.Liberals get front of the line priviledges.
Kaeb Elgae, for being a foreigner, you are very perceptive of the American way of life already. How long have you been in this country? I hope you are here legally.
Kaeb, you forgot one very important point, being from the Mideast?, you may not be aware of how important this point is:
7. The 2nd Amendment will be interpreted by Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court to apply only to the Militia – ie. The National Guard. GUNS must be taken away from the people in order for the Socialists to take over complete control. In order to take all the private property of the rich, they must first be disarmed.
Max, that was mean to attack Chas. So very very bad.
You VILL BE REPORTED FOR THIS YES?
Besides, he lives on this blog. All day long. Doesn’t that TELL YOU HIS WORK HABIT (if not ethnics).
I see his posts along with Captain America, who is also an unemployed liberal living off the sinfully rich. Captain UnAmerican.
But they may actually be smart. They have the American dream. Play all day while the ants slave away providing for them.
Help Wichita Eagle! Help! The Conservatives are attacking us! They are soooooo mean! They must be banned!
Please censor them!
Max,
Good one. That would be number 8?
In order to form a more perfect union, a country will call, on it’s liberals to fight.
A more socialist country. Where everyone is EQUAL.
The Eagle deny free speech to those who oppose their Liberal views!
Beware socialists are taking over Kansas!
But kaeb, some Socialists will be more equal than others!
It’s always works out that way!
Kaeb, I may be banned by the Eagle. That’s the risk one takes if minority views are to have any chance of getting heard.
The Socialists now far outnumber the Conservative working people.
Soon, the working people will figure out a way to stop working, for just a few months, and the Socialists will find out if they can actually work for a living and feed themselves.
It will be a stressful time for them. For the minority Conservatives, we will have a long vacation for the first time in our lives. We will see for once how the Socialists live.
I think we will like it!
I know a Doctor who lived under Communism for 50 years in the Eastern Bloc.
He made as much money as the janitors.
Soon, America will be like that.
We will all be equal.
If Janitors get paid the same as Doctors, how long will the lines be to get that free Hillary Healthcare?
Shame Max, all those Harvard educated M.D.s won’t be able to do the Country Club thing or support their local car dealer!
What will the Lincolns, Mercedes, Volvos and other dealers of the world do when the Docs are taking the public transportation to work! The 50 year old bus that breaks down daily!
What you say about doctors in old soviet bloc is so true. Think this: How much does janitor care if he leave a little wax on the de floor? So-so physican making same pay. He care little if wax left inside human body.
Hey democrite. You see new cars in Cuba? Only old pre-sixty three cars.
That not so bad as old is new in America today. We like old 55 Chevy no? So old cars for physicians those ok..
Yeah, they have free medical care and cigars down there.
I was thinking of getting me a 55 chevy and some sort of terminal illness, move to Cuba. I can live like a king!
Gotta go clean and oil the guns, and reload 1,000 more rounds.
Have a nice evening all!
Goodnight!
Party on patriot!
Uh oh… some nic stealer just stole my nic…. THAT is not a bit nice… I DID NOT post this…. I have been gone… Ha! Ha!
>>>>>>>>>>
Sniffle sniffle, stop it, you are hurting my feelings. You, you are UnAmerica. No, you HATE America.
How dare you call me chicken!
I’m, I’m going to tell my mommie.Oops I mean the monitor.
Hey EAGLE!!! YOU WHO EAGLE!!!
Posted by: Chas | July 17, 2007 at 08:28 PM
JM/Republicon went off the deep end again I see. He can’t handle it so he does this immature bullshit. Dude it’s no wonder you’re on disability. We can all see why.
That’s why Political Num ran from the other blog! They couldn’t stand her anymore!
If you were from the other blog, you know that’s not the case. Everyone left because they were sick of YOU.
Sick of me! I don’t think so! They got tired of I’ve been cheated by the Man talk every day. Queen of Victimhood Politically Numb!
You know our Fire Department and Police are kind of “socialized,” Aren’t they? Gosh! Paid for by all for the benefit of all.
When did the liberals sneak this socialist plot in here??
You have no right to use my hard-earned tax money to put out YOUR house on fire!
Look, a healthier America is a more productive and a happier America. What right does an insurance company have to take 25% of our health care dollar off the top? Especially when it is NOT improving the health of Americans.
Oh, and, by the way… Doctors who work for the government-operated health care systems in Europe do very well for themselves.
See: http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553 (It is nice to have facts instead of unsupported opinions!)
$102,335 – $155,549 for salaried doctors is common. One can go private and contract with National Health and epect to earn from $163,736 to $245,604. Probably they don’t HAVE to ride the bus to work… unless they want to.
BTW . . . My doctor’s HATE the current system that has a guy in a office a thousand miles away telling THEM what procedures are neccessary for their patients… “Something has to change.. this system isn’t working,” my doctor said to me.
Get past the jingoism and let’s solve American’s problems……
Is it safe to come out now?
Below is interesting article. Liberal news media versus one of their own:
Interesting case of the pot calling the kettle black for a change.Perfect example of how numbers don’t lie, but liars figure.
Also lot’s of good links to source date on health care:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html
In response to a letter Michael Moore wrote about CNN’s reporting on his documentary “Sicko,” a CNN spokesperson released the followingstatement:
“It’s ironic that someone who has made a career out of holding powerful interests accountable is so sensitive to having his own work held up to the light by impartial journalists, as we did in our examination of ‘Sicko,’ ” the spokesperson said.
“In our original report, we made one mistake, which we apologized for and corrected on air and online six days ago, despite Mr. Moore’s claim yesterday in his letter to us. Further, the e-mail Mr. Moore released in an effort to cast doubt on our reporting does no such thing.
“We appreciate Mr. Moore’s attention to the important subject of health care and have featured him on CNN four times to discuss his movie and our reporting on it. While Mr. Moore may want to continue the discussion in order to drive publicity to his movie, we have presented the facts and are comfortable letting the viewers judge for themselves.
“We have zero vested interest in shading the numbers to tell a certain story. Suggesting otherwise, of Dr. Gupta or of CNN, just doesn’t hold water,” the spokesperson concluded.
CNN has always prided itself on balanced reporting of claims made by special-interest groups. Moore’s documentary “Sicko,” which makes an impassioned case for a complete overhaul of the U.S. health care system, was not exempt from that reporting.
Moore has been sharply critical of CNN’s reporting on his movie. CNN gave him multiple opportunities to respond, including lengthy segments on “The Situation Room” and “Larry King Live.” Portions of those segments were aired in other CNN programs.
Moore recently posted an open letter and two so-called “Truth Squad”statements on his Web site. This document responds to the specific points Moore lays out:
POINT NO. 1:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN: “(Moore says) the United States slipped to number37 in the world’s health care systems. It’s true. … Moore brings a group of patients, including 9/11 workers, to Cuba and marvels at their free treatment and quality of care. But hold on — that (World HealthOrganization) list puts Cuba’s health care system even lower than the United States, coming in at No. 39.”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
“But hold on? ‘Sicko’ clearly shows the WHO list with the United States at number No. 37 and Cuba at No. 39. Right up on the screen in big 5-foot letters. It’s even in the trailer! CNN should have its reporter see his eye doctor. The movie isn’t hiding from this fact. Just the opposite.
CNN RESPONSE:
Moore appears unhappy with Gupta’s use of the phrase, “But hold on.”
Moore appears to be creating an issue where none exists.
Gupta and Moore agree that the U.S. ranks 37th and Cuba ranks 39th on a WHO report. Gupta in his fact check says this is true.
And Gupta never said Moore didn’t convey that Cuba was 39th, even though the verbal emphasis at that point in the movie is a comparison between the United States and Slovenia.
POINT NO. 2:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: “Moore asserts that the American health care system spends $7,000 per person on health. Cuba spends $25 dollars per person. Not true. But not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 per person, versus $229 per person in Cuba.”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
According to our own government — the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Health Expenditures Projections — the United States will spend $7,092 per capita on health in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007 (Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016).
As for Cuba — Dr. Gupta and CNN need to watch “Sicko” first before commenting on it. “Sicko” says Cuba spends $251 per person on health care, not $25, as Gupta reports. And the BBC reports that Cuba’s per capita health expenditure is… $251! (Keeping Cuba Healthy, BBC, August1 2006). This is confirmed by the United Nations Human Development Report, 2006. Yup, Cuba spends $251 per person on health care. As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba’s per capita health expenditure at $229 per person. We chose to use the U.N.numbers, a minor difference – and $229 is a lot closer to $251 than $25.
CNN RESPONSE:
CNN has corrected and apologized for an error in transcription in our report. We did so on television and online.
CNN had said that in the film Moore reported Cuba spends $25 per person for health care when the film actually reported that number to be $251.We regret that mistake.
However, we originally fact checked Moore’s reporting because he uses numbers for each country from different reports and he compares a number that describes actual spending to a projection from another source.
He sources his number from Cuba to a BBC report. In that same BBC report, the number cited for U.S. spending is $5,711. Moore doesn’t use that number, but instead a higher number found in another report (as cited by Moore above) from the Department of Health and Human Services’National Health Expenditures Projections. That projection is that the United States will spend $7,092 per capita on health in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007 (Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016). Actual numbers for the years 2006 and 2007 are not yet available, which is why CNN could not use them.
We believe the most accurate comparison of statistics comes from analysis of numbers from the same report and the same year.
CNN used the WHO’s World Health Statistics 2007 report for both the Cuban and U.S. data. That report uses the latest information on actual dollars spent, in this case from the year 2005. These summaries of actual expenditures — not projections — reported by CNN are:Cuba-$229, U.S.-$6,096.
Both of these numbers come from the same report and provide consistency under statistical analysis.
The only controversy here is within Moore’s numbers. Moore uses $251 to describe Cuban health care spending in his movie, but when CNN e-mailed Moore’s production company to verify numbers, his own staffer e-mailed back that $229 was the correct number.
As Gupta said, CNN’s numbers and Moore’s numbers aren’t far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.
POINT NO. 3:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: In fact, Americans live just a little bit longer than Cubans on average.
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
Just the opposite. The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report’s human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5 years. It is 77.6 years in Cuba (Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283).
CNN RESPONSE:
Moore cites the 2006 United Nations Human Development Index, which uses life expectancy data from 2004. CNN relied on the 2007 World Health Organization report, which uses life expectancy data from 2005. That data shows Americans with a life expectancy of 77.9 years and Cubans with a life expectancy of 77.2 years.
The 2005 data is available online at:
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/life_tables/life_tables.cfm
POINT NO. 4:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: The United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction.
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
True, but even when the WHO took patient satisfaction into account in its comprehensive review of the world’s health systems, we still came in at No. 37 (”World Health Organization Assesses The World’s Health Systems,” Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000).
Patients may be satisfied in America, but not everyone gets to be a patient. Forty-seven million are uninsured and are rarely patients — until it’s too late. In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered (And don’t face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles and costly monthly premiums).
It’s not that other countries are unhappy with their health care — for example, “70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable.” (”Access to health care services in Canada, waiting times for specialized services [January to December 2005]).
CNN RESPONSE:
Moore does not seem to have an issue with CNN’s report on this point.Here’s what Gupta actually said on the air:
“Sicko” Film clip: “The United States slipped to No. 37 in the world’s healthcare systems…”
Gupta: “It’s true. Thirty-seven is the ranking according to the World Health Organization’s latest data on 191 countries. It’s based on general health level, patient satisfaction, access and how it’s paid for. France tops the list. Italy and Spain make it into the top 10. The United Kingdom is 18.”
Again, Moore seems to be creating controversy where none exists.
POINT NO. 5:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: Americans have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when seeking non-emergency elective procedures, like hip replacement, cataract surgery, or knee repair.
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
This isn’t the whole truth. CNN pulled out a statistic about elective procedures. Of the six countries surveyed in that study — United States, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Australia — only Canada had longer waiting times than America for sick adults waiting to schedule a doctor’s appointment for a medical problem. Eighty-one percent of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment for a non-routine visit, 71 percent in Britain, 69 percent in Germany, 66 percent in Australia, 47 percent in the U.S. and 36 percent in Canada (”The Doc’s In, but It’ll Be a While,” Catherine Arnst, Business Week, June 22, 2007).
“Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world’s health care, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, ‘3 percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,’Anderson told The Miami Herald. ‘That’s a relatively small number, and they’re all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.’ “(John Dorschner, ‘Sicko’ film is set to spark debate; Reformers are gearing up for ‘Sicko,’ the first major movie to examine America’s often-maligned health care system,” The Miami Herald, June 29, 2007).
One way America is able to achieve decent waiting times is that it leaves 47 million people out of the health care system entirely, unlike any other Western country. When you remove 47 million people from the line, your wait should be shorter. So why is the U.S. second to last in wait times?
And there are even more Americans who keep themselves out of the system because of cost – in the United States, 24 percent of the population did not get medical care due to cost. That number is 5 percent in Canada and3 percent in the UK (Inequities in Health Care: A Five-Country Survey.Robert Blendon et al, Health Affairs. Exhibit 5).
CNN RESPONSE:
We believe our example of so-called “elective” procedures such as hip replacement and cataract surgery is accurate and is helpful information.More than 400,000 Americans have hip or knee replacements each year in the U.S. (http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/arthritis/jointrep.htm). By age 80, half of all Americans either suffer from a cataract or have had cataract surgery (http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cataract/cataract_facts.asp).
POINT NO. 6:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): “The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba — and it’s not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. As a proportion of their household income, it’s a significant number … (GUPTA): It’s true that the French pay higher taxes, and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list.”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
“Sicko” never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries without tax contributions from citizens. Former (member of the British Parliament) Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that “this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers.” “Sicko” also acknowledges that the French are “drowning in taxes.” Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy — half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies, February 2005, MSNBC).
CNN RESPONSE:
On Moore’s Web site “Prescription for Change”(http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal), item one is a call that “Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life.”
One of Gupta’s overall critiques of the film is that Moore leaves viewers with an impression, as he does on his Web site, that universal health care comes without cost. In fact, substantial taxes are required to pay for such programs around the world.
POINT NO. 7:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: “But even higher taxes don’t guarantee the coverage everyone wants … (KECKLEY): 15 to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government.”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
It’s not clear what country Keckley is referring to. In the United Kingdom, only 11.5 percent of the population has supplementary insurance, but it doesn’t take the place of NHS insurance. Nobody in France buys insurance that replaces government insurance either, although a substantial amount buys some form of complementary insurance (Private health insurance and access to health care in the European Union. Spring 2004).
CNN RESPONSE:
The very same newsletter cited by Moore points out that complementary insurance “provides cover for services excluded or not fully covered by the state.” The rates cited for complementary insurance in that newsletter show 85 percent of the French buys such policies, 9 percent of the Germans, 45 percent of the Irish, and 15.6 percent of the Italians. In Britain, 11.6 percent buy supplementary health insurance, which the newsletter says provides “cover for faster access and increased consumer choice.”
POINT NO. 8:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
CNN: “But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts, and he did fudge some facts…”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
This is libel. There is not a single fact that is “fudged” in the film.No one has proven a single fact in the film wrong. We expect CNN to correct their mistakes on the air and to apologize to their viewers.
CNN RESPONSE:
Gupta believes picking and comparing numbers from different places and times to suit an argument is not the best approach to a complicated issue like this one. Again, as pointed out earlier, by mixing types of data and time periods in some of Moore’s comparisons, Gupta felt that the film effectively fudged points that could have been made just as compellingly by comparing data from the same source and time period.
POINT NO. 9:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
GUPTA: “Well, I mean, he pulls $251 from this BBC unsourced report …Where you pulled the $251 number was a BBC report, which, by the way, stated that the per capita spending in the United States was $5,700. You chose not to use the $5,700 from one report and chose to go to a totally different report and you’re sort of cherry picking data from different reports … Well, why didn’t you use the $5,700 number from the BBC report?”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
Actually, the number “Sicko” cited for per-capita Cuban spending on health care — $251, a number widely cited by the BBC and other outlets– comes from the United Nations Human Development Report, helpfully linked on our Web site. Here it is again:http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html.
That U.N. report does list American health care spending as only $5,700, but it’s a few years old. Since then, the U.S. government has updated its projections for health care spending, to $7,498 in 2007. So we used that number. It’s the most recent, and comes right from the Department of Health and Human Services. If the Cuban government gave a figure on2007 projected health spending, we’d have used it.
CNN RESPONSE:
To reiterate, we believe numbers should be compared apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Moore himself says the data he’s citing from the U.N. Development Programme is dated. Consistency is important in statistical analysis and is not present in Moore’s comparison.
POINT NO. 10:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
GUPTA: “Medicare is going to go bankrupt by 2019, and is going to be $28 trillion in debt by 2075 … Look, I believe the very measure of a great society is in how we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. But would you say that this is going to be still a working system 20 years from now?”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
Medicare indeed has enough money to cover all seniors until 2019. At that time, it will simply need more funding. That shouldn’t be hard to find in a nation spending trillions of dollars to invade other countries.
Medicare is not in trouble because it is socialized medicine. Medicare faces the same economic problem private health plans do — health care inflation is out of control, far outpacing inflation for other goods and services. And in fact, Medicare is much more efficient at dealing with this inflation than is private insurance. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Table 13), per beneficiary costs have risen in nominal dollars by 519.5 percent since 1980. By contrast, the cost per enrollee of private insurance has risen by 676.6 percent over this same period. So Gupta should instead be pointing his finger at the inefficiency of private insurance (Social Security and Medicare Myths, Lies, and Realities. Institute for America’s Future and “Gupta Says Medicare is Going Bankrupt,” Dean Baker, Beat the Press) blog).
There is a clear way to make our health economy more efficient. We waste $400 billion dollars per year administering our mess of a private, profit-driven system. The answer is switching to a single-payer, Medicare-style system and taking absurd profits and administrative costs out of the equation (Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Costs of Health Care Administration, N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75 ).
CNN RESPONSE:
Again, Moore seems to be creating controversy where there is none. Moore agrees with Dr. Gupta’s reporting that Medicare solvency is only assured until 2019.
POINT NO. 11:
FROM MOORE’S WEB SITE:
GUPTA: (On the lone expert shown in the original piece, Paul Keckley).”His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions.”
“The Truth” (from Michael Moore’s Web site):
Keckley left Vanderbilt in October 2006 to become the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. The chyron on CNN even notes his new position (”Vandy administrator to head Deloitte research center,” Nashville Business Journal. November 1, 2006).
The independent chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions is Tommy Thompson, who was George W. Bush’s Health and Human Services Secretary from 2001 to 2005 and is currently running for president as a Republican (”Meet Tommy G. Thompson,” Deloitte Center for Health Solutions).
Keckley has made large contributions to Republican candidates and organizations. He gave $1,000 to GOP Senator Bob Corker in 2006, $1,000 to the Tennessee GOP in 2002, along with $1,500 to two GOP congressional candidates and $1,000 to the Tennessee GOP in 2000 (www.fecinfo.com).
Keckley was also the CEO and Founder of EBM Solutions Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, which counted among its customers Blue Cross of Tennessee, the drug company Aventis and others. Considering Keckley makes his living in the for-profit health care world — a world “Sicko”argues should be abolished — viewers should have been told exactly where Keckley was coming from.
CNN RESPONSE:
Moore is correct. Paul Keckley left Vanderbilt in late 2006. That is the affiliation Gupta referenced on “Larry King Live.” In addition, CNN obtained the following details about Paul Keckley from his current employer, Deloitte Center for Health Solutions:
“The original CNN report accurately described Paul Keckley’s role as a Deloitte health care expert. Keckley is executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. He left Vanderbilt University in October 2006 to take this new position.
“The comments by Keckley in the CNN interview were factual, neutral and descriptive. The accuracy of his balanced comments in the broadcast has not been challenged.
“Neither the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions nor Paul Keckley has a political or ideological agenda. The center’s mission is to develop innovative, practical and workable solutions to systemic issues of the U.S. health system. As such, it embraces a diversity of viewpoints that transcend easy labels.
“Keckley as an individual and Deloitte as an organization operate under rigorous rules, government regulations and professional standards designed to ensure his and our independence.
“The center has been an active participant in the national dialogue about the critical challenge America faces to preserve the best that our health care system delivers — while at the same time seeking ways to provide coverage for the uninsured, promote wellness and prevention, deploy more effective information technology to improve patient outcomes, and reduce soaring health care costs.
“One example of how the Deloitte Center’s approach is a report issued in late 2006 titled, ‘The Catalyst for Health Care Reform: Providing More Choices and Innovation to Heal the U.S. Health Care Financing System.’In addition to providing a thoughtful and comprehensive overview of the key issues, it presented one possible, innovative approach to solving health care coverage for America’s [46] million uninsured citizens. It reflects the serious, thoughtful and independent nature of the Deloitte Center.
‘Keckley does not maintain any professional or financial ties to Aventis or Blue Cross. From 1998-2002, Keckley did serve as CEO of EBM Solutions, a private company formed by researchers from Vanderbilt, Duke, Emory, Washington University and Oregon Health Sciences University. EBM developed and licensed evidence-based guidelines to 32 hospitals, medical groups, insurance companies and drug companies during this period. Among those licensing these guidelines were Aventis and Blue Cross of Tennessee.
CONCLUSION
CNN has long been committed to covering health care issues in the United States and around the world. During the same period that Michael Moore has been working on his movie, CNN has aired hours and hours of health care related reporting. Topics included: lack of insurance, under-insurance, quality of care, access to care, problems with drugs and inappropriate ties between drug companies and lawmakers. Just this week, CNN aired a second investigative piece on hospitals that dump homeless patients onto Los Angeles’ skid row.
Gupta lives with the painful problems of the health care industry every day. He is a practicing physician, serving as a neurosurgeon for the past five years at a large indigent-care hospital. His experience as a White House fellow gave him a deep understanding of the political issues surrounding health care reform. For the last six years, Gupta has also worked as a journalist whose reporting on health care and health care issues is widely recognized for its objectivity and care.
We have laid out the facts, plain and simple.
Ah the pro Doctors of Europe!
That explains why their cancer cure rate is about thirty to fifty percent lower than the U.S.
Yes, kill the patients off in the name of free health care.
That’s the ticket!
Heeheehee; Did you READ IT before you cut and pasted?????
You are somehow proud of this?
“Sicko” Film clip: “The United States slipped to No. 37 in the world’s healthcare systems…”
Gupta: “It’s true. Thirty-seven is the (US) ranking …. France tops the list. Italy and Spain make it into the top 10. The United Kingdom is 18.”
All in all, the despicable Mr. Moore made a very good case for universal, tax supported health care! Thanks for the post Half… FRANCE TOPS THE LIST!!! ’nuff said
Hooray for the USA — hanging on tough to spot # 37!!! Goooo Docs!!
Daktari.. do you have a source for your claim that Europe “cancer cure” (sic) rate is up to 50% lower than the US?
The UK has had to improve their adoption of newer drugs and they were lagging behind the rest of Europe.
But I cannot find your statistic anywhere.
And usually they do not call cancer cured…. and of course… no one there went bankrupt or were refused treatments cause they could not pay…
Yes, according to my Oncologist, Cancer is never actually cured… it can go into remission, and even long term remission… but it is always there, ready to attack without warning…
David B,
Daktari is probably the many-named liar troll, who refused to provide the dates of the UK studies he cited.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74564578
The UK has increased their health budget, and reduced the wait times.
most likely you are right cosmos
“Writing a tongue-in-cheek statement ‘We should rifle Tom’s office’ is the same as breaking into someone’s business?
“What State Law does that come under Steven Davis?”
I understand you are trying to say it is all a joke, now… Reminds me of a statement made by the lead singer for a very good punk/bluegrass band I once heard – “Hey, everything is a joke.” (_Angry Johnny and the Killbillies_). Unfortunately, not all speech is free and not all “jokes” are understood in that context.
I find it immensely amusing that members of the law and order party, consider laws to be important, unless, of course, it is they who are running afoul of them. Then it is ‘all a joke’, or ‘you little people don’t understand’, or ‘Scooter and his family have suffered enough’.
Very few people have been “banned” from this venue. Given that this has happened, it might provide a message about the toxicity of your presence. Just so you don’t misunderstand, one really, really, has to be an a**hole to be banned from here. Welcome to the ranks [sic] of Ian Santiago. Could not happen to a more deserving person [sic] if you ask me.
My parting comments to you: Good luck finding someplace else to annoy people.
Posted by: David B | July 17, 2007 at 09:30 PM
BTW . . . My doctor’s HATE the current system that has a guy in a office a thousand miles away telling THEM what procedures are neccessary for their patients… “Something has to change.. this system isn’t working,” my doctor said to me.
Get past the jingoism and let’s solve American’s problems……
BTW, just wait until ALL doctors, assistants, nurses, and lab workers have to CALL THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEY CAN ADMINISTER A SHOT.
YOu ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Wow!!
A dude melts down and the libs start yelping for more censorship and banning. How pathetic and predictable. (:
I can’t believe there are this many right-wing idiots out there screaming in panic that “the USSR won because America has become socialist.”
It must be one or two douchebags writing under multiple nics.
Again, I throw down my challenge: if being poor and on welfare is so great, why don’t you do it?
The simple fact is that as in the old country song, “I been rich and I been poor. Rich is better.”
Welfare recipients are only allowed to be on welfare for two years. Clinton signed that ten years ago.
The amount of money the US spends on social welfare programs is miniscule (remember, Medicare and Social Security have special taxes) as a percentage of the budget.
If you want to look at some big bloated government boon-doggle, look no farther than the biggest single item the government pays for from your income taxes: the US military.
Even though we have the largest GDP in the world, we will spend over half a trillion on the military in 2007–for comparison purposes 19 billion would end world hunger.
We spend more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_spending on our military than all the militaries in the NATO COMBINED.
We spend more on our military than ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD COMBINED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
World total: 1,050,254,167,000US total: 532,800,000,000
Military spending as a percent of GDP is in the 4 percent range for the US (not counting Iraq and Afghanistan which are off the books), which is about twice as high as the highest in Europe (France and England) and three times higher than most of Europe and Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.PNG
According to this site, for every dollar you paid in income tax in 2004, 42 cents went to the military and a whopping 8 cents went to what you reich-wingers call “welfare.”
Twice as much, 16 percent, went to “running the government” and a pitiful 2 percent went to protecting the environment.
How about diplomacy instead of war? Yeah, it got 1 penny . . .
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:RZFmZBrFz7AJ:www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday.pdf+us+budget+%22where+the+money+goes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
You say” BTW, just wait until ALL doctors, assistants, nurses, and lab workers have to CALL THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEY CAN ADMINISTER A SHOT.
That ain’t what happens in National Health Care systems… where do you get this misinformation?
My Doc needs to “pre Cerify” with some office who has never seen me… They decide…
Yer assumptions are wrong. .. how do you get it so wrong?
Dvid B, they havent got a clue why they are rguing against you… they are just arguing against you… because they feel like it… Thats what this Blog has turned into
Nice to see a major meltdown…
Half Full… I have to say that, being classed as middle class, your income level seems rich to me! My fiance and I combined (both of us has college degrees, we both have worked full-time since college graduation, and both worked at least part-time from the day we turned 16, in my case 14 as I worked in a family owned business) make barely $60,000 combined. Add to that two cars, a new house (not brand new but new to us, with the two car garage!) a two year old and a cat, plus trying to plan a wedding, and STUDENT LOANS that I am still paying on… and yeah, there are months that the bills barely get paid. Add another $30,000 a year to our income, and we would be living quite comfortably… it’s great that you are trying to pay your kids way through school, but seriously, if your kids want to be in a sorority (which is not mandatory to attend college) maybe they should pay for it themselves? I got a $300 a month allowance from my father to go towards dorm fees or rent or bills or what have you, and the rest of it, INCLUDING tuition, was MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay… and I didn’t qualify for grants either, that’s why I have $30,000 in student loan debt. But I did it. All on my own. And it made getting that degree that much more sweet…
So, when I was a single mother, with an income below $30,000 and a deadbeat dad who wouldn’t pay his child support (still doesnt as a matter of fact) working fulltime and paying nearly $600 a month in child support (break it down, that’s nearly half my income) and yet, I made too much money to qualify for any kind of help, and all I was looking for was child care assistance, does that seem fair to you?
Jobs go unfilled in my area that start at $25,000/year, for those with just High School Diplomas.
Avg Pay is close to $35,000 after 2 years, with premium benefits, 401k with $1 for $1 match up to 6%.
That would be $70,000 if both husband and wife worked. Plus another $2,400/year each in 401k matching benefits, plus company paid pension of $3,000/year each.
Total then $80,800 for 2 HS grads after 2 years.
Posted by: anon | July 18, 2007 at 09:45 AM
does that seem fair to you?
Fair? Who said life is fair? Your own history should answer your question. You don’t need me to tell you. You make assumptions from a dollar amount I provided early on. That doesn’t put any picture of my family, my background, the mulitple jobs I have and my wife. That tells you NOTHING about who I am as a person. Yes I paid for a sorority. It was only 800 bucks more than the CRAZY dorm where NOone could study, and music blared, boys and girls in each others rooms, the place was filthy, and meals were on a plan her class schedule didn’t meet. The dorm for 800 more provided: better security, boys only in certain areas, supervision, tutors, incentive to maintain grade point (or get booted), meals when the kids are hungry, and finally more networking for a JOB than KU could even dream about (KU just wants money, they don’t assist or place graduates in real jobs). So yes, we paid for soriety. But that doesn’t tell you how my wife cleaned peoples homes to help pay for that. How I worked 14 hour days. It doesn’t tell you our kid was responsible and required to work a minimum 30 hour job AND maintain grade point AND graduate in FOUR years.
Nope. Life ain’t fair. But those who work hard will get the gold. EXCEPT when the liberal socialist take my money and give it to people who do NOT WANT TO STRUGGLE LIKE YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND DID OR MY FAMILY DID.
There is no constitutional provision for being fair, or that they can steal my hard earned wages to give to someone who does not work hard.
Keep at it, you will get up there. It takes years sometimes.
Bitter, party of one? Your table’s ready…
PS: She just graduated and started a job at 55K. Her boyfriend started at 70K. Together, when they get married, they make more than me! And they are only early 20’s! That is great! I have three nephews who also graduated from different colleges and are making more than you and your husband combined. And they all graduated less than three years ago.
Maybe you and hubby need to start looking around, or did you major in art?
Not bitter at all farm girl.
Life is great! But for the life of me I do not understand how one person feels they have the god given RIGHT to take my money and give it to someone else. Who made them judge? BTW, we give at church.
Governments role is not to be a church and redistribute wealth.
That is pure socialism or do some extend communism. But it will never work. Never has. There will always be poor and there will always be rich. That’s not fair. It’s just life as it should be.
Try using the I grew-up in a boxcar excuse with 6 brothers and sisters and no Dad around. No welfare in my day either.
I became VP of a major corporation anyway. And all my brothers and sisters were very successful too.
Why? How? We worked HARD and we EARNED it!
lhg, I think Anon should clearly see that in her own life. She apparently worked very hard to get to where she is. She should be very proud of what she HAS managed to accomplish on her own. If anything, I am guessing she is a generation behind me, so the salary increased and improvements in life will just keep a coming. Then, when her two year old is 18, and she has a couple of others, she will be in the same place I am (or better).
She is a star example of what people CAN do independently. She appreciates it MORE because she did. Her kid can be proud of her.
She did not need the grubbermint to make it. She might think it’s not fair.
It is because of “fair” that liberals steal my money. Money I could be using for improving MY families lot in life.
Really, Little Head Guy?
Because I was raised by wolves in an abandoned out-house but I won the Noble Prize in Physics anyway.
I worked my way through college by playing the stock market, and made my first million when I was 19.
My last job was buying businesses and selling off the profitable sectors for quick turnover.
That’s how I made my first billion.
I’m sick and tired of these selfish plicks who say “I did it all.”
They couldn’t do anything if they didn’t live in a secure society with free education and the infrastruction to nurture innovation and enterprise.
Disclaimer–the above anecdotes were fiction, but they were just as true as what Little Headed Guy wrote.
Half Full–
I’m starting to figure out what you’re half full of!
If your kids went through public school and are now in a State college, you’re USING a lot more tax dollars than you’ve ever paid in.
I don’t have any kids in college. Most people don’t. And yet our money goes to your kids.
How’s it feel to be on “welfare”?
Hey Max,
The troll has returned. Spouting the same crybaby liberal koolaid.
He doesn’t even realize that nothing is free.
No answer, eh?
Okay. Let me keep the tax money I pay to educate your kids.
You wouldn’t mind if tuition tripled, would you?
Oh, yeah, and from now on, I’m going to call you the Welfare King.
Ignore it Half.
It has nothing to do in life but troll through various blogs and inserting filth now and then. It is unemployed and passes through here all day and night long. Pity it. It does not have a life beyond the shadow of it’s PC screen. All things need their ego punched. This is it’s way.
And another thing–do you take a big tax deduction for the interest on your home mortgage?
Because if you do, that’s a tax break that people who can’t afford to buy a house don’t get.
So I ask again, how are you enjoying your gov’t welfare?
The neocons always think they corner the market on ‘hard work’.
Well buddies, I have news for you. You may well had worked hard, but you didn’t work any harder than some who haven’t made it.
At some point you got an opportunity, an opportunity others didn’t necessarily get.And life isn’t like it was 20 years ago. You can’t work your way up anymore. You can’t start out sacking groceries and get promoted to a manager….they’ll hire some kid right out of college instead.
College is more expensive, and more and more poor people are being left out. It’s hard to find time for college when you’re working two jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over your head.
I am fully-employed and have been ever since I graduated from college some 30 years ago.
I own my own house (paid off). I own two cars. The last three cars we bought, we paid for IN CASH because I believe in saving up for things.
But I’m not so vainglorious to think that my small successes in life are “all because I worked hard.”
I stand on the shoulders of a lot of Americans who have less and yet helped me and my family get where we are.
Damn straight, P_Mom!
Did I mention that we always buy cars brand-new? Because we do.
Thought I’d clarify that . . .
Well Political Mom, I worked my way up. Do you think we start at the top? Nothing has changed in regard to work ethic.
Opportunity knocks at everyone’s door. But some choose to not answer.
If you can read, if you read, you will see the hours and jobs I have worked over the years. I did not graduate from college.
But I scrimped and saved and made sure my children did.
Never said I had the corner on anything. Those are your words.And the tape recorder you listen to.
Buying new cars is for suckers. That instant depreciation is killer. Buy one that’s one or two years old and save.
Doesn’t matter the cost, Captain Obvious, the little troll, wants everyone to think of it as well off. That’s important to it. You can be anyone you want to be on these pages. Sincerety is no guarantee for the truth.
Political Mom, why do you suppose college is more expensive now? The cost for higher education has skyrocketed right along with healthcare expenses.
During my kids tenure at KU, tuition increased 125% over seven years.
But I didn’t see any improvement in education for my children.
In private business, you would expect a better return on increased investment. Not so with public schools.
Overall inflation over those same years was less than 10 percent. So why 125% increase in tuition? The state didn’t cut any money.
So where did it go? Did it go to fund low income, or illegal aliens education? Did it go to professors salaries?
Just asking. Do you ever wonder why prices go up?
Anyway, my youngest graduated with many disadvantaged and poor people. So it can be done. I guess that opportunity thing must have happened and they answered.
“To the contrary, I love the United States of America. As an American fighting man I was willing to give my life in MY nations defense. I spent over two decades in service to this country. Most of it in hot, wet, and muggy climates. Some of it not knowing if I would come home. With a a dedicated wife, who also believed (and still does) in the cause I was fighting for. My children never had a best friend, because they and their military kid friends – moved so much. I spent two years floating around the Indian Ocean and WestPac on amphibious ships – at the ready. I have been scared so many times I take it as normal. I have missed wife and kids birthdays. Holidays, parents death, and a hundred school events – away from my family. Before email. Before computers. We used snail mail. I spent hours crouched down at night in jungle scared of anything that moved. Even myself.
…”
Posted by: Kaeb Elgae | July 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
OK so this is Republican, republikhan, khan, eagle beak, Kaeb Elgae.
He pretty much admits here to nic switching.
What I find interesting about the trite rhetoric above is this; he claimed to me that he was on a flight crew and that is how he saw so much of the world. Now, riddle me this, what would an airman be doing on an amphibious vessel? How much time do amphibious vessels spend at sea? What would an airman be doing crouched in a jungle.
Repub, you have shot yourself so full of holes it isn’t even funny anymore. Quit the lies man. It defames those that really did serve.
A pathetic LOSER on the WE Blog who claimed to represent Kansas “values” even repeatedly posted lies, and stole a nic.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-713.html#comment-75802340
The Capn Troll gets instantly mad when he reads about someone getting ahead thru hard work.
I had the same public education opportunities (probably a lil less even – one room schoolhouse that is now a pig pen) as everyone.
Collected not one cent of welfare, as did no one else in the 30’s and 40’s.
Whiners and cryers like the Troll Thing would have been laughed out of town.
Today, people take pity on such lazy behavior and throw money at them.
Y’all work so hard yet can’t get ahead, what’s stopping you?
And how old are you ‘half’?
Most of the people who were able to work their way up, are also much older.
See, “IHG”, you’re so old you’re out of touch with what’s really going on now.
By the way, you asked earlier how much Govt cheese I receive. Not one penny buddy.
Yes Mom, it’s a whole different world now.
In my day, people used to work for a living.
Your generation takes no pride in work and earning your own way in life.
Those under 60 will soon learn (the hard way) that Socialism does not lead to long-term prosperity.
Somebody has to do the work, and everytime I’m looking for somebody, you all are hiding on your lazyboys with 12-packs by your side.
Hey Sol… thats easy… IT claims to be quoting from somebody else… not the ” ” marks
Kahn may be nic switching… I know somebody stole mine once yesterday…. But the Kahn that is our obnoxious presence has always claimed to be UNmarried, with no children, and not old enough to fight in Vietnam… This quotation appears to be from somebody who would have been in Nam… or very close to it…
I see Republican khan JM cuckoo for cocoa puffs is lying about me again when I am scarcely able to be around to defend myself.
I did NOT out GMC as to his profession. Someone else did that and I denounced it at the time as out of bounds. If the resident (hopefully banned) nutjob does not know this, it is because this happened LONG before he began to curse us with his presence.
Hey nutjob? You want trouble? Bring it. Otherwise, seek some professional help.
Oh whatever IHG, you’re senile. Next time you’re out in the real world, tell your convenience store, nurse aide, waitress, etc just how lazy they are, and that they’re losers because they didn’t do enough to work their way out of it.
Actually Mom, the doctors, nurses, waitresses and working people I see out in daily life are not complaining at all about working.
Maybe you should get out more often.
Yeah, that’s what the Khahn troll does.
He BECOMES whatever best suits his argument.
If he wants to berate black people for rejecting Republicanism, he BECOMES a black man (Eier) or marries a black African woman (FF).
If he wants to talk about how much soldiers sacrifice for American’s freedom, he BECOMES “Eagle Beak” the married Marine, sweating in the jungle.
Then perceptive readers call him on his lies, and he plays the “victim,” “how dare you not believe a crippled vet!”
Meine Gott in Heaven, this troll is such a POS.
Let’s see, LHG or IHG, whatever.
So, you were 20 in 1940, born in 1920, so you’re 87 years old now.
Way to keep up with the times, Grandma.
My ass . . .
If you must lie, at least have the decency to lie convincingly.
Khahn, you remain an a**hole forever.
Actually there Capn, I haven’t posted today at all as I’m busy with other stuff.
Nice to see that your paranoid schizophrenia is alive and still sick though.
Have a nice day all you whining Libs.
“Actually there Capn, I haven’t posted today at all as I’m busy with other stuff.”
Posted by: Republican (NOT at TypeKey)
And we can believe that, because the many-named troll never lies, and only uses ‘Republican’ as a nic. /sarcasm OFF
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-713.html#comment-75802340
I can’t log in here on typekey cosmos, because it uses an IP number as an identifier and that particular IP number was banned from the WE Blogs with no reason given.
I thought you were smarter than that cosmos being as you have a typekey account yourself.
Guess not huh?
Many-named troll,
I knew that Typekey can block posts at blogs that use them. That’s one of the purposes of their system, besides providing a unique id for the user, a profile, etc.
And I knew that you said you’d been banned.
I merely pointed out that you didn’t use TypeKey to post.
Thank you for playing the game, and adding that you were banned from WE Blog.
Thank you Mr. Brownlee. :)
Thats a rap… confession is all but wrapped up… Cuff im Danno!! KLOL
Hang on to your hat, cosmos… It’s Baaack!!!
The many-named, obnoxious LYING troll probably LIED about being banned, so he could complain, and run around using multiple nics.
TypeKey is optional — you can NOT use TypeKey.
Or you can use Typekey.
Well, good for you . . . uh . . . whatever its name is now.
So, what happened to Little Head Guy?