Continued Discussion

Don't get too excited, this is just a housekeeping post.

I see that the what was meant to be the last post on EAB has generated over 200 comments now, which is cool - but I know that is mostly due to it being the most recent commentable post. It's starting to get really bloated and I know it can't be that pleasant to wade through.

I want to remind you that the EAB Forums are still there and available to use for Bush- and politics-related discussions. I would urge you to use them as I will be shutting down the commenting facility on blog posts soon in order that they not become unrealistically huge pages. I plan to leave the Forums going indefinitely, so you would be well served to take the discussion there.

Thanks,
-Luke

Comments

[Maryann]

Why does this feel like when they turn the lights up at last call..?

Shall we reconvene on the message boards, oh ye of many arguments? I'll see ya there in the days to come...

[rodi]

Personally, I like this format better on the boards but there's just too much to keep debating, discussing and arguing to stop now, so I'm game if everyone else is.

Who's going to start a thread and how shall we title it?

How about today's interesting news:

A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.

Which of course leads to the new and unimproved Colin Powell publically addressing that fact with a statement that claims America is not poised to invade Iraq.

Yet

(Her exact quote was "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point,")

Perhaps we should postpone the tickertape parades for the troops return home.

[rodi]

OK, I started

The discussion has now been continued in the forum under the "Current events" topic.

I started a new thread and invite Jim, Jeff, Mark, Maryann, Del, Chrish and anyone else that wants to jump in to come on over

The forum is kind of funny because when you write bullshit, it changes to bull****
Kind of a kinder gentler forum? I can't seem to locate a preview, however, so it's not the world's best forum. Luke, can you fix that? Guess you can just copy and paste into Word and spellcheck.

Anyway, see you over there I hope

[Chrish]

C'mon Luke, have a heart; damnit!!!

I agree with Rodi, it's like the lights
coming on at the end of a great concert
and they want everyone to start leaving...
Damn management, I won't mention any names,
Luke.... :o)

Of course I would love to continue to discuss, debate, argue, and blurt out censored words... :o) But, most of all, to
grow in ideas, concepts, and understanding;
to learn and grow.

I'm still reading Jeff's PDF on WMD's and
owe him a discussion on that or should I say
debate.... Assuming I still disagree with his position....

Luke, in spite of our, or at least my, disagreements with many of your positions I
thank you most graciously for the effort you
put into this site and wish you the very best of luck in your future endeavors....

I wished we all could have had the opportunity to sit down together at some pub in London, have a few pints, and discuss, debate, and argue .. :o) .. over
the many issues facing our country and the world... May not resolve anything but, perhaps come out with a better understanding about things....

Anyway, again thank you Luke it has been a roller coaster of a ride and I've learned much over these past few years from all of you at Expats and hope to retain that knowledge and understanding... My deepest
respects and regards to all.

[Jeff]

Hey Chrish, thanks for the kind word and all of your well thought out participation. But before we all sign off, you have to let me know what you think of the PDF... even if you haven't finished it. That document... and of course the many times that I've heard Bush and his administration make those statements right to my face on TV really forms the crux of my opinion. Politicians lie all the time... but if lying about war (regardless of whether he is right or wrong) is not grounds for immediate firing, then what is?

[rodi]

Hey Chris, Jeff, Jim and Maryann:

Are we really signing off for good?
Cmon, give the discussion board a chance.
It's not the best forum but it's better than just deserting one another

I feel like my disfucnctional family is all leaving !!!

I also want to know what Chrish thought of the WMD PDF

And then there's the little item of the budget that Bush submitted today that conveniently left out how to pay for Social Secuirty reform and the ongoing Iraq occuation, the 2 very things that were the highlight of his State of the Union address.

Come back, one and all

[Mark]

Rodi, what's the point in inviting Jim, unless you want to talk with someone who goes postal over the purchase of a few shares of Texas oil company stock? Obviously, those companies support our troops and build Iraqi infrastructure. Only one answer I can think of, he must hate Iraqis, hate America, and love Saddam.

[Chrish]

Now Mark, are you really going to be a stick in the mud and start excluding people?

Calm yourself down Rodi, I never said I was going to sign off or want to stop these discussions. That's in the hands of that party pooper, Luke.. Damn management!

What do I think of "Iraq on the Record" so far? Very damning piece of work against BushCo I have to admit but, I'm not finished reading so we still have to discuss it.... :o)

One thing I do find interesting is the amount of time and work that appears to have gone into categorizing, compiling, cross referencing the statements, etc. and
one question I do have. Would Waxman have done the same thing had it been Gore or Kerry that had launched us into a war with Iraq? And who paid for this, us?

Don't get me wrong I'm still reading but, those questions were at the back of my mind.

[Jeff]

Chrish, is it really relevant who went through the trouble of putting the document together as long as it is unbiased and accurate? Obviously, time and money went into it, but I would imagine that it's extremely low compared to most government studies. Compiling public statements and categorizing them doesn't seem to be very labor intensive... in fact, I believe I could do it if I had a few weeks. But forget the cost, even though I think it was low, isn't the issue important enough to spend a few bucks?

The nice thing about the document is that it is unassailable and immune to partisanship. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, and Rice actually said all of those things, most of which were broadcast on the news. A false statement is a false statement. A misleading statement... well, you can be the judge of that.

The crux of most of our arguments here has been between those who believed it was necessary to do something about Saddam and those who would not have acted without an imminent threat. Bush needed our support and he made both groups of people one and the same with his lies. Without the lies, it all fell apart. You can defend the war as being morally right, I don't have a problem with that. What you can't defend is our right to know the truth and choose beforehand, instead of having our leading fooling all of us into believing that we'll be looking at a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud."

[rodi]

Mark:

If I don't invite Jim, whose viewpoints can we hope to oppose and change?

Chrish:
On items relating to Jeff's comments, (ie: integrity and truth or lack thereof), here's an interesting tidbit:

Lots of Bush people like to dismiss many recent ant-Bush policy books as liberal, anti-American etc. I've often commented on how I find it amazing that book after book is published telling us the facts, yet so many Americans choose to dismiss them as "liberal" (thus, not true) without even giving them a look. It seems that there should be enough educated Americans with an open mind (like yourself) to swing public opinion on certain issues.

Let's suppose for a minute you give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding his intention to spread "freedom" throughout the Middle East, but then dismiss all the Saudi connections as untrue. Bush people make the argument that all people want freedom, yet the Saudis are among the most repressed kingdoms in the world. Perhaps enough people have read the books and are responding as evidenced by this:

Apparently bowing under pressure, the Saudi kingdom has decided to have limited municipal elections in and around Ryiadh. However, women, who make up 50% of the population but only 5% of the workforce, will be banned despite neutral rules that allow all citizens over the age of 21 to participate. The Saudis deny any wrongdoing, claiming that is "not logistically possible" at this time. Yet, neither Bush or Tony Blair have ever denounced this policy. And then there’s this quote:
=======================================
"In our interpretation of Islam, women have no identity," Iman al-Kahtani, a 24-year-old female journalist, remarked in "Veiled Hopes," a penetrating eyewitness account about the status of women in Saudi Arabia."
========================================
Articles like this discredit what's left of any legitimate reasons for regime change under the mantra of "spreading freedom". Bush backers love to claim how "women voting" is such a fabulous accomplishment. If Islamist values prevent women from joining the ranks of American democracy, why should the US deficit continue to climb to push the issue? How about proposing a budget that even addresses this point?

Meanwhile, in the midst of the freedom quest, Bush proposed a 12.6 trillion dollar budget that mysteriously fails to explain where he'd get the $1 trillion needed to finance Social security reform. It also conveniently excludes any information on paying for the ongoing occupation under the excuse that future costs "can not be estimated". It does, however, cut as many as 135 Federal programs and increase homeland security budgets.

While the budget may not be outright lies, why should any member of Congress be inclined to accept a proposal that fails to account for the 2 most important stated missions of the second term?

[Chrish]

Rodi,

I can't speak for the many other's who slam or condemn books written by those opposing Bush, I can only speak for myself or present my thoughts on the subject. Now remember these are only my thoughts and are just thoughts.

For many years now the Left, let's call them Liberals, have been, for all intents and purposes, in control of things. They have determined the direction and scope of our educational and judicial systems, and social programs. Whenever someone either from the center or right spoke out against them or their programs or direction they were, systematically, shut down, shouted down, and attacked in many different ways.
Essentially preventing any form of open discussion, debate, or dialog.

These attacks or whatever you wish to call them came in many different forms. One was either classified as a racist, someone with a phobia, or anti-whatever. Since those in the center and the right did not want to be viewed in this negative manner they were silenced.

Discussion, debate, dialog was stymied and prevented; silenced.

It was only a matter of time when those types of tactics would no longer work nor shut people up.

That time has come and those who were shouted down and called names are no longer afraid nor inhibited from speaking out.

Sadly, though, many in the center and the right are essentially exhibiting and practicing the same tactics as those on the Left; shouted down, called names again silenced.

The results? No real nor meaningful discussion, debate, dialog, nor understanding from either side. Kind of a 'Only our way will work.' mentality.

Rather stupid don't you think?

The pendulum has swung from the far left and is now swinging to the right. For how long? Probably as long as the Left has been in control...

If you get beyond the politics, the 'Only our way' mentality both sides have valid arguments, valid ideas, and valid solutions.
The trick is how to get both sides to drop the ego's, the politics, and the 'our way' mentality keep what is good and drop what is bad or is not working.

Democrat or Republican aren't they supposed to be doing what is in the best interest of The People and not the Special Interest Groups?

Name one politician that a regular working class joe can walk into his/her office and hunker down and talk with? If you have some big bucks certainly you can. Would I or you, or Jeff, or Jim, or anyone else be able to do that? I hardly doubt it.

Everything they, the politicians, have whether it be salaries, staff, offices, on and on and on We, The People, have bought and paid for. Yet, we have no influence or
no say over what they do

[Jeff]

Chrish, you're always coming at this from some sort of ultra big picture view. Yes, American politics suck and the system must be fixed. We can all agree with that... it's not really even a democracy. How can it be when the viability of any candidacy, down to the lowliest of elected positions is judged by fundraising?

As bad as those problems are, we have time to fix them... if they are even fixable. But right now you have a cancer growing at the very top... the worst of the lot and yet you chose to support them. You ask me what I would do if Bush was a Democrat, well I would try my best to throw him out on his ass too, just as anyone who would lie to my face to get me to send my sons and daughters to Iraq.

[Chrish]

And Jeff, as always you miss the whole point of my post. We've already agreed that
politics suck American or otherwise and Our system must be fixed.

It isn't going to be fixed if both sides have a 'Only Our Way' mentality, which, is the crux of the problem. This mentality consumes both sides. No matter what the issue is if one side presents a solution the other side, essentially, says "No way!"
"Our Way is Better". The shouting, the name calling, the accusations start and all discusssion, debate, or dialog is SILENCED.
The Left used that tactic for some time and now, sadly, the Right has picked up on that tactic and are now throwing it back. Will anything substantial be accomplished? I hardly doubt it.

Incidentally Jeff, I did not ask you what you would do if Bush were a Democrat. I asked what would you do if, in the same circumstances, it were a Kerry, a Dean, or a Gore; a Democrat in office? I'm not as consumed by Bush as you appear to be.

You say, "you have a cancer growing at the very top..." and I submit that the cancer is already in the body politics and has been for some time now. You also say, "we have time to fix them... if they are even fixable." May I assume your fix would be to put a Democrat in office and then everything would be all hunkie dorie?

Yes, it is fixable if We are all willing to hold those people in office ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, their ineptness and incompetence. And that goes across party lines. It is also necessary to hold the news media ACCOUNTABLE for reporting partial facts that only serve to put their politician or party in a better light; bias
in reporting. Again that goes for both sides. I don't know about you but, I'm not
interested in an opinionated report on a news item. I'm more interested in the facts; all of the facts good or bad. I can make my own decision (choice) on whether it is good or bad. I certainly don't need some news reporter or journalist telling me how or what I should think. Just the who, when, and where; the facts.

[Jeff]

Chrish, well it's really the same standard whether Bush were a Democrat or Kerry/Gore in the White House. You ask me whether my solution would be to put Kerry in the White House... it would certainly be a start. It's certainly better than keeping someone who's lied to us and refuses to accept any accountability... someone who says that his re-election is American endorsement of his entire administration's actions during this whole fiasco... even Rumsfeld, who I assume you'd like to see let go or at least disciplined in some fashion.

As for the facts... that's what I've tried to provide. The Report on Iraq would be enough evidence to seal Bush's fate for some sort of criminal misrepresentation in any court of law if he were the CEO of a company... and you would probably be able to add some sort of fraud on top of that for total mismanagement of our money.

[Chrish]

"his re-election is American endorsement of his entire administration's actions"? That's nothing more than political sales talk. I don't buy into that anymore than you do. He won the election but, that doesn't necessarily mean he can do any-damn-thing he wants to anymore than if Kerry had won the election.

I disagree with your position that Kerry would have been a start towards it being better. Kerry couldn't make up his mind from one day to the next where he stood on a given issue. Today he's here, tomorrow he's over there, and the day after tomorrow
who the hell knows. Unless, of course, you want to take into consideration that he might be getting his direction from the European countries or, perhaps, he would be taking his directives from what the UN tells him?

[Jeff]

Chrish,

Why are you so sure that it's just political sales talk? The people who were most egregiously wrong about the war got retained, promoted, or simply awarded the Presidential medal. Rice, Gonzales, Tenet, and Rumsfeld... are you really going to tell me that all four showed first rate job performance and judgment?

Regardless, even if it's political sales talk, it's ridiculously politically incorrect. Does he really think he's going to unite the nation by saying such a thing? You're defending a man who's shown misguided bravado from the get go... a man who's insulted our allies and inflamed our enemies. He finally admitted that he shouldn't have said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive" and "Bring it on!" and that sentiment gave me hope for all of 10 seconds before he dashed it.

You say that Kerry flip flopped with the wind... well, I'll give Bush this, he ran a masterful campaign that covered up all of his flops. From not wanting to wanting the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security, from no nation building to nation building, from not wanting to offer North Korea any incentives to offering, from promising to pressure OPEC to not, from wanting a U.N. vote on the war to not (when it was obvious it wouldn't work), from having high tea with Chalabi to raiding his offices... how many more flip-flops do you want?

Voters have a short memory... Bush actually opposed any type of early election until Sistani forced his hand. In fact, it was the U.N.'s Lakhdar Brahimi that arranged the compromise. Bush flips and flops just as much as anyone else and in the instances that he doesn't, he's often completely wrong and unable to admit it... and guess what? People die because of it.

The fact of the matter is that these decisions that a President must make are extremely complicated and may change every single day. I fail to see why you consider someone who changes his mind worse than someone who makes up his mind and sticks with it, even though it's wrong. As I've illustrated, some of Bush's best decisions were total flip flops...

What a bunch of contradictory drivel.

[Mark]

I'm curious, if anyone on this board is still alive... what y'all think about the whole James Guckert/Jeff Gannon thing? To me, it's frightening, both how far Bushies are willing to go to control the news and an even worse indictment of their competency.

the Bushies have complete control of CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc etc

[rodi]

Mark:

I'm still around and it looks like some nameless and clueless Bush supporter is still around also.

The big news for me as an expat in Canada is Paul Martin's surprising swing in policy. Apparently, the Canadian government has now come out and said they will not support the Bush Star Wars plan to dominate space but disguised as a missile defense system for North America. Man, now that's a flip-flop. Too bad he wasn’t running along with Bush and Kerry cause then the GOP could have a legitimate argument for "flip-flopping." Paul Cellusci's immediate response was that "We (America) will continue to protect North America against missile attacks even if Canada won’t." Can't wait to see the political and economic repercussions of Canada once again having the unmitigated audacity to challenge a Bush policy.

And don't you love the way Bush goes on a European mission designed to "mend fences", and then pubically "demands that European nations cooperate fully with US policy."

Couple of fun tidbits for all the idiots that still don't get it from the current book I'm reading ("What we've lost")

* A large amount of the Humvees that the Marines are forced to use are actually sport model Hummers designed for the actual road with little or no protection from attacks . Soldiers refer to them as "topless Hummers"

* When the Iraq War started, returning vets in the VA were paying $8 per day for their food until Bush finally agreed to let this insane policy stop.

* The Dept of Defense denies routine visits to VA hospitals from members of non-profit organizations designed to aid vets with benefits and paperwork for fear that they will disclose current Bush policies that deny almost all benefits to returning vets due to constraints on the system that existed BEFORE the invasion. Expect 25% more homelessness in the upcoming decades as the Iraq vets start to have their benefits denied.

* When most soldiers finally return home, almost all are forced to pay their own way from remote US bases scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East. To avoid having to fly them all the way home, Bush policy grants most leaves with only a 1 to 2 day notice, thus forcing soldiers to purchase full-fare tickets from Germany or Saudi Arabia under the guise that they can't afford to use valuable military planes.

Way to support the troops.

[rodi]

This is in response to Chrish's comment on the Message Board regarding Social Security privatization
(I also posted it there)

Chrish:

First of all, Social Security is hypothetically separate from the Federal Budget as is Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course we all know that Bush could find a way to manipulate that rule as a last resort when the deficit hits the quadrillion figure.

Secondly, as an employee of the financial markets for over 20 years, let me run this scenario past you. Let's say you invest diligently in your IRA, 401K and cash account for 30 or 40 years like you're supposed to. Someone that happened to retire in 2000 would have seen his nest egg shrunk by 30 to 40% compared to the same person that retired in 1992, right before the Bull Market run of the 1990's. In the market, advisers base almost all future returns on a 7 or 8% average return EVERY YEAR. If you happen to be at retirement at the start of a bear market and think your "private Social Security Fund" is going to earn you a better quality of life than the GUARANTEED pittance that is Social Security, you are kidding yourself. In addition, SS is supposed to be a small component of a diversified retirement plan. Obviously, those that have no other means of retirement are not exactly savvy investors. By privatizing, the government absolves responsibility from one more New Deal Program that Bush is trying to eliminate completely. You will be blamed for making poor investment choices when your money doesn't grow. (In fact, it can LOSE money, something Bush forgot to tell everyone)

The Bush doctrine has been slowly eliminating 50 or 60 years of Liberal social safety net programs that FDR started. Making HMO's richer while more Americans have absolutely no means of healthcare in the world's richest country is another example. What's wrong with privatization is that the system is solvent for another 30 or 40 years according to US Accounting and Budget Department estimates. It's just another example of why the Bush presidency will be viewed as one of the most destructive in US history to both Americans and the rest of the world.

[Jeff]

It's just easier to post here, isn't it? Continuing with that answer to Chrish's question about privatization... sure, it sounds good. Your money and you get to control it. So why have any sort of retirement account at all? Forget 401ks, IRAs, and SS... just take it all home and invest it yourself... right?

Whether SS is in crisis or going to work in the long run is up for debate. What is not for debate is that privitization will not and cannot fix SS unless the government uses some ridiculous rate of return that they expect all the accounts to see. What we know for sure, privatization will costs trillions. Instead of some storage place where money goes, now Americans are supposedly going to be able to trade.

So who provides all the mechanism for that Chrish? I suppose your brokerage allows you to maintain your finances and trade stocks for free. Obviously, many more Americans have SS than have brokerage accounts. Do the math. The only way for any of these deficit problems to be fixed is to start spending and start saving. Like that's going to happen. Everyone knows it won't and that's why the dollar continues to tank. Your dollars depreciate just like your car... and you can't drive them either.

[Chrish]

Jeff,

Wake up!!! Everybody knows that Social Security is "hypothetically speakking supposed to be a seperate account from the Federal Budget". Reality doesn't jive with what is "supposed to be.'. The fact is ALL of those politicians have been dipping into SS for some years now. WAY BEFORE BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE! Got it, WAY BEFORE BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE! Now, if you can put aside your hatred towards Bush, I know that's a difficult proposition for you, and look at SS as it is now we might just get somewhere.

I am amazed at how for years now the atypical Democratic Socialists consistently dragged out the SS scare when they thought it would serve their cause; it worked. When all the smoke and dust cleared those very same politicians stopped paying it lip service, did nothing to correct it, and it was business as usual; nothing was done.

Bush presents a reform to SS and the same group comes out saying the opposite of what they were previously stating; nothing's wrong with SS, the system is fine. Note that Bush was not the first president to say that SS must be reformed. President Bill Clinton stated that SS had to be reformed or there would be no money left in the fund. I repeat Jeff, Bill Clinton stated that SS must be reformed or there would be no money left in the fund.

So who's lying Jeff Bush, Clinton, or both?

What has been going on is slate of hand. SS taxes go into SS and those friggin politicians BOTH SIDES move some into the General Fund so they can fund their assinine programs that haven't really accomplished a hell of a lot. So much for the New Deal that FDR created. And both Democrat and Republican politicians have been diving into that fund to serve their's and their Special Interests concerns.

Now, you tell me what would be so bad to have more control of those funds as opposed to having politicians controlling it?

You're obviously a financial wizard so what do you think would be the best way for a person to have control over their own SS funds, how to make it grow in the safest possible way? IRA's, 401K's (assuming the usual thugs don't steal it), investments, stuffed into a mattress?

Assume, for a moment, that having control of your own SS funds was an option. How would you handle those funds? What would you do?

Keep in mind that it would be an option. You do know what an option is don't you? You could choose to either stay completely with SS or have a percentage of it at your complete control. What would you do? Let your favorite politicians continue to "control it" or, perhaps, would you, as a financial wizard, take advantage of the offering and do what you do best; play the markets? Hopefully in a cautious manner.

Bush has not said everyone will be forced to go that route. He's presented it as an option. You can choose to either try it with safeguards in place so you don't lose it all, or you can stay on SS as before.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as the number of retirees increases, and they will, there will be less being paid into the SS funds. When it comes time for the next generation to retire where's the money going to come from? Your politicians, the generosity of Big Business? One of two things will happen; the Feds will have to borrow money to pay out SS, or they will have to increase the SS Tax. Which do you think will happen?

Of course, we could always just sit back, do nothing, and wait and see what happens.
Remember Clinton said it before Bush did and nothing was done then. How much longer do we wait before doing something about it.
Based on those assumptions why worry about Global Warming. Nothing's going on so why not wait and see what, if anything, happens?

[rodi]

But Chrish:

While it may be true that previous presidents have dipped into the SS fund, Clinton had a SURPLUS in the BILLIONS. Bush has now fought a voluntary war (or "preemptive" war as the GOP jargon goes) that has put us into a RECORD DEFICIT. There is NO MONEY to reform SS without quietly reducing or eliminating other federal programs. Did you know that as soon as the Iraq war started there were a slew of acts passed in the wee hours of the morning to free up as much money as possible? NO media coverage, little, if any debate. That's the way the Bush administration operates.

Then there's the tax cuts. There's not one single economist in the nation that can deny that the BIGGEST single cause of future generations having a LOWER standard of living is the Bush tax cuts. For example, after all the tax cuts are enacted fully (and then subsequently revoked back to square one in 2010), the richest 1% of Americans will have approximately 17 cents of every dollar going towards payroll tax. (the tax that actually funds SS)

The 80% of the population that comprises the bulk of the nation will have 16.5 cents going to the same payroll tax. The Bush Doctrine is slowly whittling away at the graduated tax system designed to benefit those he claims his tax cuts will help. The reality is we are very close to a flat tax system. Can you say socialism ?????

As usual, the SS reform is just another distraction from the horrible administration that this president is running. Did you know that when the Labor Department's jobs loss report looked too unfavorable one month, they actually tried to include FAST FOOD JOBS in the "manufacturing" sector? Tax cuts encourage outsourcing, which in turns DECERASES the very jobs that the American economy is supposed to be famous for. There is record college enrollment at the moment but the next generation can look forward to an increase in industries such as hospitality services, retail and general laborers. Good luck to the graduates that demand $50 to $80K when the Pakistanis and Indians will do the same job for thousands less.

One day last year Bush stopped in Bakersfield, a city with almost 20% unemployment. He went to a small business owner and gave a speech about "job creation." When interviewed later, the owners said they had hired TWO people, both making salaries near the poverty line.

And to address your financial wizard questions, most Americans can’t even balance their checkbook, never mind deciding what mutual fund to invest their social security in. Have you already forgotten Enron, Worldcom and Tyco? BTW, Bernard Ebbers is living the same life of luxury he did in the 1990's and there has yet to be ONE SINGLE FEDERAL CHARGE against Kenneth Lay. Yet the MILLIONS of Americans that you think Bush cares about are now forced to work another few years or retire poor thanks to the lack of emforcement. (Bush thinks the SEC and the IRS represent a "nuisance distraction" to a free market system)

[Jim]

Chrish,

They will never take off the blinders. Face it. If Bush says it, it's bad. If Clinton says it, he's a saviour.

Elections in Iraq? No that's not good, because it makes Bush look good.

SS reform? No, it's better if people get a 1% return on their money than a 10% return like they would probably get from the stock market.

And by the way, not one American can balance their checkbook and not one economist in the whole world thinks tax cuts are a good thing. I talked to all of them.

Here's an idea. Let's take all of our money and throw it into a big pot, then divide it up evenly. It worked in the Soviet Union

[Mark]

Same old Jim, all rhetoric, no facts.

That's why you are the one with the blinders and you are the one who will suffer as your money is taken away from you. 10% in the stock market, eh? It's that simple... Is that what tech investors in 2000 received for their hard earned investments? How about those who bought Enron and Worldcom?

How much is it going to cost us to turn SS into a brokerage account? Where are the trillions of dollars going to come from to privatize? Are brokerages going to buy this stock for free? That's what I thought... you have not the slightest clue. That's why your bank account in U.S. dollars went down 50% against mine that's in Euros and Aussie dollars. I'm happy for you... go on doing what you do.

[Jeff]

Jim, when it comes to foreign policy, I would guess that none of us are experts. But when it comes to money, several of us are in the business. Your ignorance is plain and you're so far out of the league of being able to have an intelligent discussion on this that I don't know why you'd even bother.

[Jim]

...and the stock market has not out performed Social Security over time. Okay, thanks self proclaimed Elites.

[rodi]

JIm

Since you asked, (kind of), the political reason why privatization is so important is because Wall Street is one of the only major Bush contrubutors that has not been fully repaid. Most favors have gone to the oil and gas interests. However, Wall Street contributed millions also.

Firms like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch
have estimated the approximate profit from privatizing to be somewhere in the $5 billion dollar range. Not bad in a post-tech wreck age.

[Jim]

So is that why Clinton wanted to do the same thing?

[rodi]

Ummmm

When there is a little something called a BUDGET SURPLUS, there's no need to fix something that isn't broke. But even if there were, funds would be available to pay for it.

[rodi]

Jim said:

>And by the way, not one economist in the whole world thinks tax cuts are a good thing. I talked to all of them.

In that case, you're obviously aware of the following data from the Urban-Brookings Institution tax Policy Center

* In 2004, the middle 20% of all US households will receive 8.9% of the tax cuts
* Millionaires, comprising 0.2% of US households, however, will receive 15.3%.
The tax cuts will bestow $30 billion on a mere 257,000 Americans.
* By the time the tax cuts are phased in fully, the wealthiest 1% of US citizens will receive 39% of the total tax savings.

For example, your wonderful president received $30,858 in tax savings for 2003. The CEO of Pfizer, who contributed $200,0000 to Bush, received $224,214 in tax savings in 2003.

You also know that according to the IRS and the General Accounting Office, tax enforcement against big tax evaders have fallen 60% since 2000.

And of course you also know that after releasing the 2004 Economic Report of the president, members of the administration tried to distance themselves from the ludicrous job growth predictions (460,00 per month) by backing off its own numbers and stating "The president is not a statistician."

The manufacturing sector has lost 2.8 million jobs since Bush so his solution was to reinvent the definition of manufacturing jobs.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, those with an average salary of $35,300 got $400 from the Bush tax cuts. WOW !!!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget Bush's proposal to cut $3 billion from the Earned Income Tax Credit, one of the few things that actually does help working parents with incomes less than $35,000. And the elimination of the child tax credit for 12 million children of low income workers. But I guess they can't balance their checkbook because I know you talked to them all.

Naturally, you also know that the division of wealth is far greater than any Democratic nation on Earth. 40% of US wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. I suppose you are among those elite few that you call us all, right Jim?

[Mark]

Rodi, why do you even bother? Really! There are people worth educating... those who realize that they don't know enough and want to learn facts. Then there are jokers like Jim, who know nothing and just want to get under your skin. Let him support Bush with blinders on. I work on Wall Street and I don't mind taking $5 billion off of people like him. I used to care about their well being, but screw that.

My friend Bush helped me make a 100% profit in oil stocks, CVX, APC, HAL, and making Exxon the largest company in the world within one year! Even better, I was paid a 3% dividend the whole time, of which I got a tax cut on thanks to Bush and if I sell, I get another whopping capital gains tax cut thanks to Bush.

The president is a genius! He got imbeciles like Jim to think that he was saving the world while he gave himself and his friends a infusion of money that just keeps on giving. Even better, he got Jim to defend him and worship him while he was getting jacked at the pump and jacked on tax day. Now Jim wants to give us his SS money! Whoo hoo! Let the party go on!

[Jim]

I just come here to keep the sight going. You guys don't say anything unless I say something that irks you.

Well I'm off to bed.

Be sure to say your prayers guys. "Dear Karl Marx, we thank thee for this big pot we share...."

[Mark]

Wrong again, Jim. Having you support a President who rips you off and lines the pockets of himself, his supporters, and me. What could possibly be irksome about that? It's ingeniusly entertaining.

Hey, since the stock market returns 10%, why don't you invest 100% of your money in it instead of leaving any in the bank or under your mattress?

[Jim]

Mark,

Stop writing to me. I'm not worth the time.

Though my mattress is getting pretty full.

[Mark]

No, Jim, you're not worth the time. But the unintentional comedy that you provide is great! You should be the star of your own reality show. Let's call it, "Jim gives Bush a Ride" about an idiot who argues with facts made up out of thin air and dares to be smug. In it, you could educate the world on how SS returns 1% and stocks return 10% and how so many Republicans who oppose privatization are Marxists.

[Jim]

No, let's call it, "The Mark of Arrogance". It will be about a self proclaimed Wall St. genius, who makes millions off the stock market but gives all his earnings away to the poor and downtrodden (because you do, right?) Then he proclaims "all is well" with social security. Why? Because it's the opposite of what Bush says.

[Maryann]

OK this is way off topic, and seriously cheeky, but Mark would it be completely out of order to ask if you might have any input for me on a personal level re: investing?

I suspect this is a similar request to the ones I get hit up with all the time about helping out a friend's brother's yoga teacher's band (I'm in the music industry) but if it's not totally obnoxious of me to ask, I'd really appreciate just a couple of minutes of your time. I've been wading through loads of newspaper and magazine columns on the topic and feel as confused as ever about what to do with the money I still have in dollars.

If you're open to this, please drop me a line on maryannmelchior@yahoo.co.uk and I'll get in touch with you at your convenience. If not, no hard feelings, and please do keep up the good work on this board. Your posts have given me a some great, pragmatic data to back up my suspicions about this administration, and I really appreciate the time you've taken to get them out there.

On an unrelated note, did anyone see the special on torture in US prisons on Channel 4 last night?

[rodi]

Mark:

Hey, this is fairly entertaining.

On a serious note, allow me to address your question of why I bother. I also work in the financial industry; started in 5 WTC 20 years ago, moved to California and now I work for a small Canadian brokerage after marrying my Canadian wife and moving to Calgary.

As I've alluded to, I am NOT a democrat; in fact, I have no party affiliation. Nor have I ever been so interested or fascinated (in a negative way) with any US presidential administration. Hypothetically, I should be exactly like you. My wife and I are middle class, make about $170K combined, own a $240K new house (that would've been $700K in California) and have a decent investment portfolio. So if anything, everything Bush does also from a financial standpoint benefits me.

But when I moved up here I had a long period of involuntary unemployment due to the limited market in this oil and gas haven. So I began reading a lot of books. As one that believes in education (reading provides a better means than college), I began to learn exactly what Bush has done and continues to do. I never considered myself overly moral or overtly political.

But I am moving back to the US after our house is paid (2 or 3 more years) which makes me very concerned about all the other issues that don't get major media coverage like environmental policies (or lack thereof), health care issues, secrecy policies, education and domestic policies.

Almost all the attention is focused on Iraq and although this is understandable, I cannot begin to stress how many things Bush has done that go virtually unnoticed in the media. These policies affect you, our kids, our grandkids and me. Economic stupidity can always be undone by future administrations and it's even possible to restore the world's faith in America as well as swinging the country back to center instead of far right. But some of the things his administration has done are irreversible and I think there are just enough people out there like Chrish that voted for Bush but question a lot of his policies. If educated, these people can make intelligent decisions that help put America back on the right path.

For example, did you know that Bush has defied and broken the Clean Air Act enacted 30 years ago? He has allowed several proven toxic chemicals to be declassified as toxic to allow industry to skirt the costs related to compliance. Did you also know that numerous studies about Global Warming that the EPA (an agency created to protect the interest of all Americans) are either changed or simply disregarded and never made public if they say anything that impedes oil and gas interests? This is a God-Damn outrage. How is possible for a Democratic government to simply suppress and classify reports that are for the public's interest?

And did you know that memos went out to all National Park supervisors telling them exactly what they can and can't say to the media regarding budget cuts? In his own home state of Texas, the Padre National Seashore is one of only 2 places on Earth where certain sea turtles nest. Bush has allowed development, reversing laws enacted by the NPS to protect endangered species. In Alaska, the Tongass National Forest is the largest forest of its type in the world, a place where wildlife remains virtually unchanged since before Columbus. Bush has allowed logging interests to begin depleting the forest. Under his reign, the number of endangered species has DECREASED since 2000. And he has allowed coal companies permission to mine form the tops of mountains and then release the waste into local steams and rivers. (Another illegal act)

Don't forget No Child Left Behind. Studies show that as many as 85% of US schools will wind up failing according to this simpleton plan that punishes schools based on standardized testing. School districts have been forced to either resort to bake sales and fundraising because of all the penalties imposed on them or to outrgightly disregard Federal funding. How can the Federal government enact a law that requires a large amount of federal money to ensure compliance and then underfund it so much that no state can comply? This is illegal but the Republican controlled Federal judges say too bad. And school vouchers encourage forced enrollment in faith-based schools, another underlying purpose of the law and an ILLEGAL ONE !!!

Did you know Bush's choice for head of the Houston school board called the NEA a "terrorist group" because they will not advocate teaching Christian religious values in public schools?

These are some of the reasons why I bother. Polls released today by The NY Times show that virtually no American support the Bush SS reform. They may have re-elected him but it's my guess that very little of his remaining agenda will be accomplished. The question is can we undo some of the insanity that is the Bush war on Democracy? It seems the public is starting to at least see a hint of the lies and deceptions. As an optimist, I give Jim the benefit of the doubt that he writes one thing and says it's to "amuse" us, but he is actually thinking about a lot of the facts we present. Let's hope we can forget this decade as much as the WWII years and start new in a few years.

[Chrish]

Rodi,

With regards to the environment I'm whole heartedly with you on that one. I'm dumbfounded by the actions or blatent stupidity of the Bush administration when it comes to the environment.

Yeah, I heard about the orders given to the Forestry service and was amazed they didn't have the cajones to tell the administration where to stick it. Seems to me that should be considered a violation of Freedom of Speech.

I'm equally amazed at the so-called FDA another group that serves as a whore for the drug companies and their voraciousness at greed.

With regards to the educational system and the No Child Left Behind Act I am in support of the concept. Our educational system used to be one of the best if not the best in the world and is now down with third world nations. We're graduating kids from high school who are functionally illiterate. They continue to push their flawed and failed program of Bilinqual Education even though over the past 3+ years since its elimination the kids have had over a 50% improval rating with English.
Explain to me how you teach someone English in Spanish?

A number of my aunts speak both Spanish and English and believe in the concept of Total Immersion. For them you cannot learn a language unless you are completely exposed to it.

I see nothing wrong with requiring our schools to improve their ratings. Incidentally, the schools haven't really had a cut they just did not get the increase they were expecting or they would normally have gotten. It's the same scenario that's going on here in California.
The teachers union is claiming that Arnie is drastically cutting their budget; not true. The fact is he has increased their budget by something like 2 Billion. They are complaining because they won't be getting more if there had been no cuts to begin with. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see any money the schools received be fed into them from the bottom up rather than top down. First to the classrooms and the teachers, then to the school, then to the districts. Let the districts deal with the crumbs that are left over they've become to top heavy anyway and don't seem to be doing a whole hell of a lot of good.
's
Jeff, nothing was said about investing in companies like Enron, WorldCom, and other's.
The politicians have the option of investing their money's into a group of investments and are profiting nicely off of them. So why can't the common Joe have the same kind of opportunity? Look at the success they've had in, I believe, its Argentina where they're doing exactly what Bush is suggesting; people are benefitting from that opportunity.

Rodi,Jeff, or Mark explain something to me and it's something I've always wondered about. SS is "supposed" to be a seperate entity that we all pay into as a supplement for retirement, correct? How is it that the condition of the Federal budget always includes the SS trust fund. "trust" fund, now that's an interesting tag to place on it. I would think that the SS funds have absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Budget unless, of course, they've been dipping into it and putting in IOU's which, of course, we all know they will never pay it back, which would explain the tie in.

So what does the Social Security funds have to do with the Federal Budget? Any and all moneys paid out to retirees are coming from the SS fund which we've all paid into so where's the connection?

[rodi]

Chrish:

First, education:
Obviously, I support a better education system for the nation. But the fact remains that the Bush plan punishes school districts by forcing them to pay (up front) if they are deemed as having schools that don’t meet the simplified explanation of a "passing grade." Basing federal funding on standardized tests that do not take into consideration language barriers and demographics, but the refusing to provide the amount of federal funs that independent agencies have stated are necessary for the implantation of such standards is what bothers me.

I agree that the only way to learn another language is immersion. My wife picked up lot of Spanish from working at a dialysis clinic in a poorer area of San Francisco when we lived there. I'm all for improving schools but the fact remains that 15 or 20 states have sued the Federal Government for failing to provide the funding necessary to implement the rules. BTW, the legislation is over 700 pages long and contains dozens of clauses that force school districts to pay up. Certain states have resorted to not even reporting their numbers. For instance, Michigan reports that over 60% of its schools fail according to the plan but Wyoming reported 0%. And Colorado simply refused to comply in favor of not receiving any Federal funding at all.

School districts across the country have resorted to extreme methods to save programs due to the Bush plan including teachers working an extra 2 weeks with no pay, posing nude for calendars to raise necessary funds and canceling any and all extracurricular activities in order to avoid layoffs. the average teacher makes about $30,000 out of college, lasts about 3 to 4 years before leaving the industry and makes a salary that has increased a about 0.05% compared with the rate of inflation.

I agree the schools need help. But Bush sugar coats everything as "black and white.", "with us or against us." Teachers are NEVER consulted and investigators in Houston found that his own school districts were fudging their numbers to avoid penalties, the teaching equivalent of Enron cooking their books.

As for Arnold, as the husband of a Registered Nurse, you will get zero support of any of his plans based on his insane attack of the Nursing industry in an effort to save money. Arnold VIOLATED the law by allowing a commission to "study" the situation for 2 more years instead of implementing higher nurse to patient ratios as required by the Proposition that was passed by voters in 1998.

Turning to Argentina, you can't compare them to the US. A financial crisis erupted there a few years ago due to heavy government regulations and large deficits (sound familiar?). The difference is that in countries whose debt is not supported by the Saudis, the markets react by devaluing the currency as investors get spooked about the government's ability to repay their debt.

Onto SS, you answered your own question. As I pointed out before, Bush has 1 and only 1 primary reason for pushing reform to a system that has been shown to be solvent thru 2040. Wall Street feels they have not been properly paid back. All the items I made reference to above (logging, timber, coal, oil/gas, pharmaceuticals) have all been handsomely rewarded for their large contributions to the Bush campaign at the expense of the general public. If SS privatizes, the way it would be implemented is through large brokerage firms setting up huge accounts on behalf of the US government and then passing on the costs to both taxpayers and the government themselves. This is fee money because most Americans jump when they hear "10% returns" (Which, by the way, is 3% higher than the best possible scenario in the best of market times, tech years notwithstanding)

The fund is mostly protected from government raiding. According to the government's own agencies (GAO, etc)the system is currently taking in about 16% more than it's paying out and ironically, the more tax cuts are implemented, the more that ratio will go up. (payroll taxes, the main source of SS funding, are not being cut since average Americans, not industry, stand to benefit from that) Bush policy is actually helping the system remain solvent, yet he cries that it's broke. Back in 2002, Bush stood at Ground Zero and gave an empty promise to Wall Street that he'd "crack down on corporate crooks". In fact, he's slashed an already underfunded SEC to the point where they can only focus on shit like Martha Stewart when Ken Lay lives his life of luxury to this day.

Not sure what you mean with your Enron comment but please be more specific and I'll comment more

[Jeff]

Jim, I really pity you. Of all the participants here, it is you who have offered absolutely nothing to the discussion on SS, clearly because you don't even understand how SS works. Yet, you have the gall to accuse people of opposing privitization strictly on the grounds that Bush is for it, when it is you who is guilty of supporting it solely because we're against it.

Rodi has essentially written a treatise filled with financial facts, many of which have nothing to do with Bush. It's actually free financial advice, there for the serious consideration if not immediate action, but because of your hatred, you can't even protect your own pocketbook.

Even your attempts to be snide are pathetic. I have no idea whether Mark gave anything to charity and further, it's completely irrelevant to anything. BUT, Rodi, Mark, and I all voted for Kerry, who's campaign promise was to raise taxes on those making over $200,000.

I can't speak for the others, but I do know that many in that category voted against Kerry specifically to keep their $30,000 tax savings. So for those of us who are doing well and still voted for Kerry... you at least know we didn't vote for our pocketbooks and would have antied up to pay for your president's record breaking deficits.

Giving to the poor and downtrodden? Well, we tried to give the money... but Bush supporters, especially those who needed it the most, didn't want it.

[Jeff]

Chrish, to answer your question about why I brought up Enron and Worldcom... we are talking about two of the largest companies in America before they fell. They were very, very, very widely owned. In fact, many Bushies were ex-Enron executives, who probably either made boatloads of fraudulent money if they sold on time, or lost it all when they didn't.

The point is this... not even the politicians are guaranteed any kind of return from the stock market. The monetary unit that we're talking about is called social SECURITY not social RISK. It's supposed to be there in bad times.

Stocks as an entire class are risky and some are so risky that some are banned from 401k plans and the like. I can't really believe that I have to state what is so obvious... as if the stock market only goes up and never comes down.

Have you forgotten that the Nasdaq was once trading above 5,000? What if you had $5,000 in SS in 2000 and woke up in 2002 to find that it was only worth $1,300? Or if you had chosen Enron, it would be ZERO. Would you be ready to retire?

I too am not sure what you're talking about with Argentina... they just had a full blown financial crisis so bad that the government prevented people from making bank withdrawals and there were riots.

[Mark]

Jeff, you are way too kind. Whenever I see one of Jim's posts, I let out a hearty laugh and wonder if there aren't other ways I can't take his money in addition to $2 oil, tax cuts on everything, no-bid contracts. If only I were a bit closer to Bush, like those Saudis he's not pressuring as oil reaches yet another all time high...

Amazingly though, I don't have to do any thinking at all. The great thing about Jim is that he just keeps on giving! I'm ready, willing, and waiting to charge him set up and trading fees for his social security money so he can chase the 10% return that he's having a wet dream about.

When it comes down to it, Bush is really genius... not as a leader, but in creating a cult and extorting blood, sweat, and tears from them. All he has to do is say 9/11 and the money will come. Freedom and democracy! Cha-ching. Terrorists and evil-doers! Cha-ching. WMD! Cha-ching. Gay marriage! Cha-ching. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a patent on it...

[Mark]

There are a lot of substantive questions to answer and that I'll do to the best of my ability. Bear with me, as it will probably come in pieces...

Chrish, there are a lot of myths floating around on social security and it's hard for even those who are in corporate finance to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, our politicians won't tell you and that goes double for Bush... which is why we have to do the hard work ourselves. You have to be be the judge of whether the facts fit my conclusions.

To expand on what Jeff said, SS does not exist to send you off to a lavish retirement. That, my friend, is your responsibility. What it does is provide a safety net... insurance. In the case of your common Joe... or let's call him, common Jim, who's blown all of his life savings and is too old to work, it provides some money to keep him out of poverty.

Where's the crisis? Seriously, this crisis appeared out of the blue on Bush's domestic agenda. I don't recall him saying anything about social security in 2000... in fact most have forgotten, but I vividly remember the man campaigning on tax cuts because of budget surplus projections that everyone knew were false.

Imaginary surplus, imaginary WMD, and now imaginary SS crisis! I love this guy! You have to admire the balls of someone who takes money out of the system with a huge tax relief package aimed mostly at those who don't need it and then cries that there's not enough money in SS. But everything works when you have supporters like common Jim.

Your first piece of evidence is that SS takes money out of your paycheck. Just look at your tax forms... it's all there and it's there for your co-workers too, assuming that you're not retired. It's called "Federal Insurance Contributions Act", NOT pension. It pays something if you're disabled. It pays your spouse something if you die. When you are retired, SS will be taking money from the new generation of workers...

You speak of a common myth that the IOU will not be paid. Yet, U.S. treasuries are regarded world wide as the safest possible investment based on the exact same thing as SS, the power of the U.S. government to tax us. If you try and sell a U.S. treasury today, do you really believe they're going to tell you that there's no money?

SS has worked for 70 years and is currently taking in more money than paying out, although those projections are changing because of our demographics. Bottom line... there's no crisis and even if there were one, the solution would be to raise taxes instead of dreaming up some fantasy privatization scheme.

One other thing for you to consider Chrish, is that privatization does not mean that you'll get to sit around trading individual stocks online with your SS money. Rather you get to pick from a few mutual funds that the government lets you choose from after they choose what companies are in the fund. I hope that idea raises serious alarm bells with you... if you were the CEO of a public company, what would you do for the chance to sell shares to every single person with SS?

[Mark]

Maryann,

I'm still thinking about what you asked. It's a bit touchy for me to offer investing advice given both what I do for a living and what I do not. Nevertheless, your request is not cheeky at all, in fact, I'm flattered that you think what I write is useful.

The what I do not is a bit easier to explain. I'm not an expert at currency or investing and I'm not a financial advisor or a broker, so I can't say that I have any history of giving this kind of advice. Even of the two Bush related investments that I've spoken about here, oil and foreign currency, I only expected modest success at the time I went in. All I knew were that the most powerful people in our country were oil men and that they were going to do huge tax cuts and lower rates like crazy.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think Bush (and Greenspan) would end up with a perfect storm of events: never ending war that's already 7 times over budget, tax cuts, record low interest rates, wild increases in money supply, no-bid contracts, no pressure on OPEC, no security in Iraq, etc.

Furthermore, I never imagined that there were enough common Jims in our country who enjoyed the punishment so much that they would want more and re-elect such an incompetent president. It takes a special type of retard not to question how a Texas oil companies, like Exxon-Mobil, already the biggest oil major, managed to double their size in two years time, becoming the single biggest company in the world while he pays double at the pump.

But I digress, you asked me about the U.S. dollar. My best guess is that the slaughter will continue in the long term and that there's a real chance of currency crisis. Because of our trade deficit, foreigners now own $2.4 trillion more of us than we do of them... so much so that they even own much of our mortgage debt. Just imagine how you would feel if you lent money to George W. and he not only spent it recklessly, but gave you the finger.

There's a lot more to this story, including free money from low interest rates, wild increases in money supply, no savings and wild spending by American consumers, and shady lending practices (0% down on a $700,000 house).

But if you want to protect yourself or at least diversify, you can trade USD for foreign currencies or precious metals, which are supposed to be a store of value. I've heard that everbank.com offers an easy way to trade foreign currencies. Luckily, gold got a lot easier to trade since both StreetTracks (under the symbol GLD) and Barclay's opened up exchange traded funds.

I hope this helps and I'll think about what if any other advice, if any I can offer. Needless to say, you must draw these conclusions yourself and take opportunities only when you think the reward is greater than the risk. If you're not a true believer, then even if the idea is right, you'll be a weak investor who is prone to being shaken out and hurt during the many roller coaster rides.

[Jeff]

One crucial thing that we haven't talked about enough is the transition cost of privatization. I could use some help fact checking, but if I have it right, then the whole plan is absolutely ludicrous.

First, we already know that SS checks are being cut to the retired from incoming money workers send in. So what happens if this very same money is used to buy stocks? Obviously, you cannot both buy stocks and pay retirees with the same money. So Bush plans for us to borrow money from the government at 3% over inflation to pay for current benefits.

On top of the borrowing costs, someone has to pay a new government agency for monitoring the private accounts. The cost I hear is $2.8 trillion. You would have to earn an enormous rate of return from the private account to cover your loan and whatever other administrative fees there are. And if you lost money? Then I think you'd be up shit's creek.

[rodi]

Jeff

From what I've heard, the large Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch plan on being heavily involved in the administrative aspect of maintaining the privatized SS fund. Large global custodians like State Street Bank & Trust are also salivating over the thought of acting in a fiduciary capacity for accounts that potentially have 150 million participants. Of course there will be no bidding or anything that resembles a fair market. Those that contributed the most will have first dibs, plain and simple.

Back to the comments on the choices available. Bush claims you won't be forced to invest in the stock market. Even if this is true, look how many Jims simply have no clue and just listen to Bush.

March is the 5 year the anniversary of the NASDAQ bubble. Amazingly enough, it's been 60 months since it topped out at 5080. Notice the value today remains in a trading range of 2000-2200. 10% returns are a thing of the past with the possible exception of some of the best run energy sector mutual funds like T Rowe Price or Fidelity. But even that won't continue because if oil gets past $60 or $70, the Bush government will probably wind up stepping in to somehow curtail price increases.

The point is that SS does NOT need fixing at the moment. Yet today Bush is speaking in Pennsylvania and Michigan to give speeches about why reform is so imperative. After a stop at the FBI where he decreed that "the fight on global terrorism is going well."

I have a theory. After reviewing everything Bush has done that rarely gets attention from the media (many of which I have alluded to in the last few days), there's actually little left to change that he hasn't already done. The big picture goal of Bush is to completely wipe out every "New Deal" form of socialized government controls in favor of a "free-market economy" that exists ONLY for corporations, industry and the wealthy.

He's already made illegal changes to the Endangered Species Act, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and completely revamped the nation's energy policy in total secrecy (the Federal Courts have continued to rule against everyone that keeps suing to have the minutes of Cheney's Energy Commission made public)

He's also appointed over 45 Federal Circuit Court Judges in all 11 districts with views so conservative it would make your head spin, succeeded in allowing price controls for prescription drugs and denying Americans the right to import them form Canada, enacted Medical and Medicaid reform that completely ignores the senior citizens it serves, and severely limited the nation's school budgets by enacting a policy that can’t work due to a shortage of federal funding.

There's only so munch more he can do to ensure that the next 4 or 5 generations can not undo his attack against traditional American democracy. So is it any wonder that he wants to take away one of the only guaranteed social safety nets left in order to line the pockets of the financial industry (the same industry he vowed to rid of corporate wrongdoers)

More on Medicare reform:
Some of the more ridiculous rules written into the legislation include:

- A clause that HMO's can change the prices of prescription drugs by simply posting a notice on the internet; hardly a means of information for most seniors
- Forces the seniors to choose between over 300 different types of Medicare Discount cards, all with different rules and rates. Most of the discounts go the drug companies.
- A "gap" between the amount that government pays initially and then starts paying again when a certain limit is reached. This has increased to as much as $3500 out of pocket

Mark is correct in his assessment that Bush is actually a genius by somehow successfully allowing an entire nation to bow at his every move simply by saying "terrorism", "9/11", and "moral values".

Thought you guys would appreciate the headline form The National Post the other day:

"Bush won't return Prime Minister's Calls"

(Payback for not agreeing to sign onto Star Wars)

And in case none of you heard, a Montana judge has successfully issued an injunction stopping the border from re-opening to Canadian beef imports despite the OK form the FDA and the Secretary of Agriculture. Yeah, NAFTA really helped Canada. At last estimate, $7 billion has been lost due to 24 months of lost exports due to one case of Mad Cow from a cow that was born not in Canada, but (where else)in America?

Actually, there is one more thing Bush is working on to exasperate America's stranglehold on the world, the CAFTA (an extension of NAFTA to include Central and South America) Anyone wanna discuss how much more that can discredit up the country's already tarnished reputation?

[rodi]

Well, I stand corrected. I commented that there’s not much left Bush can Bush do to push his lunatic policies further. I forgot about one of the only acts so radical, it’s been stalled since 2002.

Today he nominated Steve Johnson, a 24 year veteran of the EPA to head up the agency. His primary function is to promote Bush's "Clear Skies" policy. Holy irony, Batman, could there ever be an act named that is a bigger oxymorn?

Clear Skies is a Bush program is so atrocious to the environment that even the Republican Senate blocked it from passing in 2002. In short, it revamps U.S. air pollution laws, creating a `cap-and-trade' system that allows utilities that exceed pollution limits to trade credits with utilities below the limits.

In other words, allowable levels of carbon dioxide, sculpture and mercury that can be released into the atmosphere would rise so that industry can skirt existing laws passed for the benefit of the general public and make more money.

Adolph Bush's public comment is that it's a
"common-sense pro-environment, pro-jobs piece of legislation". In other words, these are some other of the few industries left that have not been rewarded for all their Bush contributions.

Not surprisingly, Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents utilities such as Southern Co. and Duke Energy Corp. in Washington, said Johnson would be a great addition to the administration's team that pushes policies like "Clear Skies." Gee, another comment from someone that represents the interests of big industry. How surprising

By the way, Bush's request for the 2006 fiscal year included a 5.6 percent cut in funding for the agency, to $7.57 billion, the second time his administration has requested less money. Budget cuts last year were restored by Congress for total agency funding of $8.02 billion

Once again Bush displays his intentions by cutting funding to another government agency created for the protection of all Americans in favor of lobbyists and greed.

Will there even be any government agencies left by the time he leaves?

[Jeff]

Chrish, remember when you told us to wait until all the facts came in about the missing explosives? It seems that they're coming in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=print&position=

"The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period."

[rodi]

In case anyone missed this post under "returning to America", I thought I'd post it here too because of the importance of the issue. Chrish, are you out there? How about Maryann and anyone else that still feels a passion for America ????

Jeff and Mark:

We already know that Jim is all for privatizing SS and virtually anything else Bush says is OK because...well, that's Jim (and most of America, unfortunately)

What do you guys (including you, Jim) think of yesterday's Completion of the Decimation of American Public Land? Let's hear it for the 51-49 Senate vote to allowing drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, an act that has been voted down year after year after year?

First of all, kudos to the American media for barely making mention of one of the worst possible environmental decisions in US history (and the 2md biggest victory in the Bush Dictatorship on terms of Energy Policy)

Then there's the irony in the entire situation. As Mark alluded to, oil hit another record high yesterday and yet another one today. The AP reported today that the average price of gas has hit $2.09 nationally (still a bargain compared to the 84.9 cents a liter I have to pay) Let's briefly re-examine what caused this to begin with. OPEC continues to voluntarily agree to increase production. World leaders agree that there is no danger of the world's reserves running dry. What we are witnessing is the market's reaction to the perceived ongoing threats in the world due to US foreign policy.

Additionally, as we have also mentioned previously, the real issue is the fact that China and India are now the 2nd and 3rd largest consumers of the world's oil reserves. Demand in China will continue to increase tenfold over the next 50 years, that much is a fact. So the question becomes how to deal with the new reality of the world's oil supply.

Any administration that was not so far to the right would probably focus the attention on trade relations, thus allowing the entire world to share in the world's supply. Naturally, the Bush administration chooses unilateral protectionism disguised as "spreading freedom throughout the Middle East."

Once again, I often feel I'm one of the only Americans educated enough to be outraged by what continues to occur under this administration. Reports from Bush's own agencies and studies from the EPA clearly state that the amount of oil that can be extracted pales in comparison to the irreversible damage that will be done to the Caribou herds, and countless millions of acres that must be trampled upon to get the oil out of Alaska and into the lower 48. Yet the administration conveniently DELETES any parts of the reports that are detrimental to Bush policy BEFORE the Senate even gets to see them. How on God's earth can anyone not call this a form of Fascism????

Oh, I stand corrected. Yesterday's John kerry.com email was actually DEBATED on the floor of the Senate since he had the unmitigated gall to muster up 260,000 signatures in 24 hours in another hopeless Democratic effort to defeat legislation that will harm the next 10 generations of Americans.

Mark; let's get back to the real issues here. Yeah, Bush policy helps my portfolio but how much more destruction of Earth’s resources are we going to be able to tolerate without dire consequences? I reiterate my position that the amount of total secrecy, deception and censorship that the Bush administration operates under is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE !!!! But I guess until Jesus comes down and tells him he should get oral sex from interns in the name of freedom, we're all fucked.

[jj]

Strong language, Rodi. but you might as well give up, you are talking to a bunch of people who follow their leader so sheepishly, it has become the envy of the North Korean propaganda machine. Somewhere in the past decade, the right forgot to think independently. Oh, I remember, it happened on 9/11/01.

[rodi]

With last night's "emergency" session of Congress in order to interfere with the outcome of the Schiavo case, Bush has once again successfully mounted another attack on American Democracy.

Before you jump all over me, let me state my case:

I am not making an argument for either pro-choice or pro-life, right or left wing, liberal or conservative. That is NOT the issue. No matter what your moral beliefs may be, the fact remains:

This is the only president in US history that changes the law if the law doesn't suit his personal, religious and moral beliefs. A judge had already made a ruling and that ruling was that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to overrule the lower circuit courts. That was the INTERPRATION OF THE LAW as it stands, according to the previous rulings at the Federal level. Bushies love to claim how all us "whiner Liberals" need to accept the fact that Bush won, that we need to accept that the people spoke, yadda, yadda.

OK, fine, except that the laws of the land obviously do not apply when they conflict with the right wing agenda. I cite this quote from Bush as evidence of my point:

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.

WHAT AN OUTRAGE !!!!!!!

Bush has NO BUSINESS shoving his moral beliefs down my throat. How on God's Green earth can this administration justify an "emergency" meeting to change the law and have it apply ONLY TO ONE PERSON??. Funny how he never interrupts his precious vacation time except when an opportunity arises to make an enormous political statement. If we can't change the constitution to exclude gays, let's at least pursue a policy that the US Government should OVERRULE a state and interpret the laws of of the land according to moral and religious issues

In case any of you have not been following, Bush has appointed over 44 Federal Circuit judges in the last 4 years, more than twice the # of the last 3 presidents. (to little or no media fanfare, of course) These are the judges that influence US policy, not the Supreme Court (who hears very few cases) Why do we even have any Democrats left in the Senate or the House? This is the most hopelessly pathetic minority Congress that ever existed.

Hail to the Dictator

[Chrish]

Oh please, Bush signed what YOUR Representatives both Democrat and Republican
voted for. How do you come to the conclusion that this is another one of your
left wing conspiracy theories??? He didn't push it YOUR Representatives pushed it.

Get it right; Democrat's AND Republicans voted that bill into law and Bush signed it. So what is wrong with the idea of erring on the side of life?

You seem to have no problem giving convicted death row inmates a free reign on appeal after appeal after appeal until they die of old age just to make sure their constitutional rights are protected. Is this any less important.

Would you allow a convicted death row inmate, or a terrorist to be put to death by starving them to death or letting them die of thirst?

I can't say whether what is being done is right or wrong, nor any of the other rhetoric coming out over this. But, I believe it is better to err on the side of life rather than what is being done to her;
death by starvation and thirst.

If they are going to do it then why not give her a lethal injection so she doesn't have to suffer? Quick and painless as opposed to slow and painful.

As for the judicial system it has been far too long that people with an agenda or a personal belief have been put on the bench.
They don't base their decisions on the law but, what their agenda or personal opinion dictates. It's time for balance.

There is one point I do agree with you and that is on this BS idea of opening the Alaska tundra to oil drilling. How about this for a conspiracy. For some time now oil prices have been rising and, as usual, the Feds do nothing. Now that prices are getting higher people are more inclined to accept the idea of drilling in Alaska for the meager drops of oil that may or may be there. It does make one wonder if this isn't a scam being perpetrated on Us. Instead of taking the opportunity to push for more R&D in alternative sources of energy we're going to drill in Alaska, something that people have been against for how many decades? Now, it's acceptable?
Something sounds very fishy here.

[Jim]

The Schiavo case has been way over politicized. A special session of Congress because it happens to be a newsworthy case is not right. Yes, error on the side of life. However this has gone on for almost 15 years. The family only started saying bad things about the husband after 3 years, when he decided to let her go.
I find it odd that so many people want to save this woman (hasn't she suffered enough?), yet when asked if they would want to be kept alive in the same state, they say "no". Make out a Living Will people. Let your next of kin know what you would want in this situation.

Love,

-You favorite punching bag

[Jim]

How many doctors have to say she is brain dead before she is let go?

[Chrish]

Yes, and the husband only started talking about Terri's wish to die seven years ago.

What's the harm in giving her or her parents the opportunity to be heard in court, to have her case *completely* reviewed; all of the facts gone over? Why is everyone in a mad rush to see this woman die? Not a quick and painless death but, a slow agonizing death; death by starvation and or thirst.

Why don't you try this; for the next five days don't eat nor drink anything, not a single thing and see what you are experiencing, assuming you make it that far?

We will give a known murderer every opportunity to appeal their death penalty and we are unwilling to allow these two people, her parents, the same consideration?

Let all of the facts of this case be completely reviewed without any prejudgement
nor opinion. How long would that really take, 1, 2, perhaps 3 months? Is that really to much to ask or expect? What is the harm in allowing or expecting that to happen?

The parents have already stated they want to take care of their daughter, they'll pay for it, and they've even offered to let Mike Schiavo have a divorce thereby dismissing him of any involvement. He's already moved on, already has had two kids by his girlfriend.

Would it really be that terrible? Who's to say that in the hands of her parents she doesn't begin to improve, albeit not completely but, enough to be able to express hereself?

What's the rush? You condemn Bush for "rushing" into Iraq and yet, here you are wanting to rush this woman to her death?

Think about what Terri Schiavo is experiencing the next time you feel hunger or thirst.

[Jim]

Chrish:

You know I never condemned Bush for freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam.

I also believe we go way above and beyond the call of duty for criminals who intentionally kill others. Beside the point.

How many appeals and court cases and doctors does this have to go through. I would submit that the judges and doctors know a lot more about this case than we do. This man was offered 1 million dollars to divorce his wife and give custody to her parents. He didn't. Isn't it possible she really did tell him she didn't want to live this way? I wouldn't. I don't think 12 years is a rush to "kill" someone. It's just that it's received so much media attention the past two years.
How do we know she is not in great pain even with her feeding tube? Too many people think they know what's going on here and precious few really do. And many of them are biased.

[Maryann]

I didn't write this but it pretty well sums up my views:

March 22, 2005

The caption on the front-page photograph in Saturday's Tribune assumed too
much: "Supporters of Terri Schiavo, who has been incapacitated with brain
damage for 15 years, protest Friday outside her Florida hospice," it said.

The five protesters all wore symbolic gags reading "LIFE," indicating their
opposition to the removal of the feeding tube that has kept Schiavo, 41,
alive since 1990.

But whether or not that makes these protesters supporters of Terri Schiavo
or, in fact, obstacles to the realization of her deepest wishes is exactly
the question the nation is chewing on this week, now, isn't it?

Most of the conversations on this issue I've had lately have started with
the hesitant question, "So, what do you think of the Schiavo case?"

What do I think? Well, I think it's ironic.

Ironic that social conservatives, who are usually enthusiastic about
consigning sentient human beings to death based on court rulings, are so
dubious of the legal outcome in this case. Neutral arbiters have carefully
weighed the extensive testimony of doctors, family members and other
witnesses along with the arguments of top-drawer lawyers and ruled
repeatedly that Schiavo's husband is right, she would not want to continue
living in her persistent vegetative state.

Ironic that Senate Republicans recently voted overwhelmingly to cut
Medicaid benefits--benefits that provide health care for the profoundly
disabled, among others--yet are now preening about their concern for
"life."

Ironic that when President Bush was governor of Texas in 1999, he signed
into law the state's Advance Directives Act, which says that, "If a
hospital or other health provider disagrees with a (patient surrogate's)
decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment . the case goes
before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the
guardian or surrogate has 10 days to seek treatment elsewhere," according
to an Associated Press summary.

Under this law, Texas Children's Hospital removed a 5-month-old boy from a
ventilator Thursday despite his mother's legal battle to keep the severely
disabled baby on life support.

Ironic that the very forces that are forever whining about the big, bad
federal government are once again happy to violate the prerogative of the
states--medical marijuana and gay marriage are other instances that come to
mind--by advancing narrowly targeted legislation in Congress to wrest
decision-making power from the Florida courts.

And ironic that a family dispute has elevated a very common occurrence--the
suspension of life-support measures for a patient who is never going to be
meaningfully conscious again--into another one of our national morality
plays.

By rights, these protesters with tape on their mouths ought to be camped
out in front of every hospital and hospice in America. They should be
kneeling, holding candles and demanding extraordinary measures be taken in
every tragic, hopeless case.

That's what I think. But to judge from my conversations, what people think
about this case--particularly those who, like me, haven't studied the
judicial rulings available online at abstractappeal.com--seems profoundly
influenced by how they feel when confronted with its broader outlines.

I feel, for instance, that I would far rather die than live like Terri
Schiavo. I'd want my loved ones to unplug me and then hold a big memorial
party with lots of singing and dancing and stories told at my expense.

I feel that it's easier to make such a decision about your own life than it
is to make it for another's, but that letting go--and suffering grief
compounded by pangs of uncertainty--is one of the most heroic acts of love
the heart can perform.

Every day, sons and daughters, husbands and wives make the profoundly
selfless decision to release their illusions, to forsake forever the
comfort of sitting beside a warm but essentially empty vessel and to say
goodbye.

I feel there's more to life than "LIFE." There is no greater way to honor
to humanity than to acknowledge that it's more than mere biological
existence; no greater way to show life due respect than to let it end with
dignity, not desperation.

All these feelings lead me to yet another thought: Terri Schiavo's real
supporters are those who wish for her a swift and quiet end.

[rodi]

No matter what side of the issues you may be on, my main problem with the issue is the fiasco that has erupted in the Senate over a case that's been going on for 7 years

Chrish:
The main answer to your question is the fact that this has already been decided and debated in the courts for 7 years. the fact remains that Bush could give a rat's ass if she lives or dies. He saw an opportunity to push ano5ther moral issue into the public's eye and claim that only him and the Congress are moral enough to know what is right in this situation.

I'm fully aware that Dems and Repubs collaborated on the issue but how many Republicans do you suppose voted no?) Amazing how Bush can interrupt his precious vacation time to cram a moral issue down the country's throat whenever it's convenient. You can't be "pro-life" and claim to support capital punishment anymore than you can claim that a "pre-emptive war" is not as much of an oxymoron as a "compassionate conservative."

What pisses me off is how only this administration would have the gall to engage an "emergency" session of Congress in the middle of the night while an occupation continues. Ironically, the judge appointed was a Clinton holdover that refused the appeal on the MERITS OF THE LAW.

Poetic justice perhaps?

What other law has ever taken the time of the US Senate to apply only to ONE PERSON. ??? The obvious political rhetoric is appalling.

[Chrish]

Oh please Rodi, another opportunity for you to bash Bush? I'm not going there with you and please do enjoy your trip.

Maryann, very thought provoking and thank you for the post. I disagree with some of what was stated but, can understand the sentiment. Life is more than just mere Legalities.

Hopefully, you'll ensure you have a living will and power of attorny already filled out. My wife and I have so we don't find ourselves in that position. I agree, I would not want to live like that but, quite honestly would prefer they just give a lethal injection and be done with it rather than drag it for 10 - 14 days.

I still see nothing wrong with a complete review of all the facts especially those that are starting to come out in this thing.
Would it really be such a terrible thing to give the benefit of the doubt and wait? Again, if you're willing to give the likes of a Peterson the benefit of the doubt and grant him appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal for the next several decades is
it too much to ask that Terri's family be given the same consideration?

Jim, "How do we know she is not in great pain even with her feeding tube?"? How do we know she is not suffering the pangs of hunger and thirst, now?

[Jim]

The CAT scans say she is gone and also feels no pain. Even Fox News says the the video of her following that balloon is only a few seconds of a 4 hour videotape. Most of the rest of the tape is her family trying to get her attention and saying, "watch the balloon". Her husband is also not the devil. He did try to help her for years. But sometimes there is a time to let go. My future wife knows to let me go in such a state. I hope you all make your specific wishes clear with your loved ones and write them down.

[rodi]

Jim:

God Knows this may be a first but I totally agree with you on this issue.

Chrish:
The problem with "reviewing all the facts" is simply this: I am not trying to take sides either pro or con. I'm not without compassion. The entire situation is sad enough as it is.

My arguments are based on this:
Every state has individual control over a family matter. No matter what Bush wants you to think, from a legal standpoint, this is NOT a case that has any Federal jurisdiction. The law is quite clear on that. But when the law is simply not moral enough for this administration, the Senate and the Congress rush to have an emergency interpretation of the law. This is UNPRECEDENTED. In other words, NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever had the audacity to attempt such a move. I view it as an abuse of power.

No matter what you feel about the law, you should RESPECT it as it is. If you are pro-life, that is your right and I will uphold your right to your moral or religious beliefs. But as it stands TODAY, abortion is LEGAL, thus we all accept and respect the law. American Democracy has always been about having the ability to challenge and change laws according to social norms. Thus, if the Senate, Congress and the President wish to have the law changed, they should set about changing it through proper channels. Mark my words that nobody in their right mind (barring the right wing) would lobby to have states rescind their rights to decide a family matter in favor of a Federal Circuit Court.

Apparently, the Federal District Court AND the mostly Bush-leaning Supreme Court agree with me since the Supreme Court has just ruled that they will NOT hear the case.

It's sad enough that America is so divided thanks to a president that claimed to be a "uniter". Why polarize people any more by forcing some law based on personal beliefs down the nation's throat?

[Jim]

To those who think that Republicans (including me) walk in lock-step with the President and the right-leaning talking heads, you might want to check out these comments on the Fox sight (a right leaning news org.) You might be surprised.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77925,00.html

[Chrish]

Rodi,

Believe me I can understand the opposing view on this incredibly sad situation. I
cannot think of anything sadder than watching a mother pleading for the life of her daughter. And yes, I can sympathize with her plight and for that reason see nothing wrong with giving her and her family the opportunity to truly present her arguments, facts, and testimony from all concerned. Isn't that what we do over and over and over for murderers, rapists, and terrorists when they've been given the death penalty? Does she deserve any less?

Regarding your arguments on the matter of "states rights" I find somewhat humorous.
It could be said that "states rights" were violated when the Feds stepped in during the civil rights movements of the 60's. The same could be said when states voted against gay marriage and were overturned by Federal courts; were their "states rights" not violated as well?

I'm equally amazed but, not surprised at how even in matter as tragic as this you somehow are able to twist this into being all Bush's fault, as if he had ordered those representative to enact that bill.

Again, it was NOT Bush that pushed this, rather, it was YOUR Representatives that got involved in it; both Republican and Democrat. Bush merely signed what YOUR epresentatives pushed through.

"Why polarize people any more by forcing some law based on personal beliefs down the nation's throat?"? Can that be any worse than shoving secular ideology, "personal beliefs", down the nation's throat?

I find it interesting that a murderer in Texas after 14 years was given a stay of execution because his lawyer claimed the instructions given to the jury "weren't clear enough". The man killed a restaurant owner in a botched robbery. Is it possible
that perhaps, just perhaps NOT all of the facts regarding Terri Schiavo's situation has not been given the same consideration?
Again, what would the harm be in giving her a stay and her parents the chance to present their case with no bias nor prejudgement? Would that really be an End of the World scenario?

Jim, I'm not able to access your link at this time but, will keep trying.

[Jim]

Chrish:
You could probably find the comments in the opinion area of Foxnews.com
For those who think the majority of Republicans or even conservatives would want to keep this poor woman plugged in, I think you might be surprised. I have not seen one poll to support that. I'm a little disappointed in our legislature on this one, passing a bill which only applies to one person. Yes error on the side of life, but this has gone on too long. I think her husband did try to save her for a long long time. If he is such an animal as some would believe, why didn't he take the $1 million to divorce her. I think he really is fulfilling her wishes. Just my opoinion.

[rodi]

Chrish:

Good morning and Happy Easter Weekend (funny coming from a Jew, eh)

Anyway, have to side with Jim's last post again. The husband did turn down the $1 million. Most Americans would sure have a rough time doing that.

I do agree with at least half the things you said (with an asterisk, however.)

>It could be said that "states rights" were violated when the Feds stepped in during the civil rights movements of the 60's.

True, which actually backs up my thoughts that the Feds can and will force the hands of the states when it's obvious that the national consensus has changed. Obviously, advancing Civil Rights can only be opposed by racists, bigots and morons that thrive on fear. However, in this case, note the following excerpt from the AP today:
===========================================
Americans steadfastly have held to the view that the matter ought to be none of the government's business.

"Eighty-two percent of respondents to a CBS News poll this week said Congress and the president should stay out of the Schiavo matter, an astonishing consensus among today's polarized electorate."
==========================================
That figure even blew my mind. I'm not laying the blame on Bush because you are correct in saying that he voted on something that my elected officials wanted (well not mine because Boxer would never vote yes) And I'm not defending the Dems. My main point is that even Bush supporters appear to NOT want the Government to decide family issues. Right to die issues do involve morality but most people feel they are moral enough to make a personal choice that is just that; personal. The entire administration blundered on this.

>The same could be said when states voted against gay marriage and were overturned by Federal courts; were their "states rights" not violated as well?

Yes, they most certainly were violated. the difference between civil rights and gay marriage boils down to one thing and one thing only: Any civilized society would eventually advance the cause; even South Africa finally gave in after enough pressure.

Gay marriage is based in religious beliefs. While I personally do not oppose it, it's easy for me to understand how the right wing and those who do not live in more liberal states would be offended. But that's the very reason why the states that are willing to tolerate it should retain the power to enact laws. To me, it's nothing but a legal issue of whether they are or are not entitled to similar government benefits that everyone else can enjoy. I could care less whether people "accept" their gayness or not; that's not my concern.

Here's another example:

"Many of the same Republican leaders who this week demanded federal intervention are longtime advocates of states' rights in matters such as abortion, workplace regulations and civil rights protections. The inconsistency has irked some conservatives who believe demands for federal intrusion will haunt Republicans in future deliberations."

I only bring this to light as a Bush thing because currently, that is our president. A congress slanted more to the center would probably not have ever tried to intervene. My point is that most Americans, Repubs and Dems, obviously want the government to stay out of this one. Let the family exhaust all the options. If they choose to handle the whole situation with denial, hatred and opposition to the inevitable (and legal decisions decided by our justice system), that's sad, but still their choice.

One more quote from the Cato Institute to further remind you what I am vehemently opposed to:
=========================================
Representatives of the religious right refused to accept defeat Thursday, demanding that Gov. Bush, and even the president, take action even though the courts said they had no authority to do so.
"If she dies, there is going to be hell to pay," warned Randall Terry, the leader of antiabortion group Operation Rescue, threatening consequences for politicians who used "pro-family ... rhetoric to get into power and then refused to use it.''
===========================================

Wow does that piss me off. Any act of the Executive Branch of Congress that oversteps the Judicial Branch is an abuse of power, no matter what president sits in the Oval Office. Americans should never ever let that happen.

[Jim]

If these polls show one thing, I hope it illustrates that despite what many of you think, most Americans, even Republicans do not blindly walk in lock-step with the party. I feel bad for the family who is not only losing a daughter (personally I think she was lost long ago), but is also being used for political purposes. Everyone loses on this one.

[rodi]

Jim

Are you the same person? Cmon, really. If you are capable of expressing viewpoints like your posts regarding Schaivo, why don't you do it more often?

It is my contention that there are a lot of Republicans and Bush supporters that do not march to the party's every beat. That's my main reason for posting. People like Chrish have shown lots of respect for an opposing viewpoint. In my world, just a few million more Americans can turn the next administration just a tad back to the center where it belongs. It's kind of like the world being slightly off its axis for 8 years.

[Jim]

Hey, don't get me wrong, Rodi. I'm still a Bush fan on most things? ;-)

Condi '08

Have a good weekend.

Interesting phrase, Jim, "You know I never condemned Bush for f