Michael Medved Meltdown, Part II
Michael Medved has to be pretty upset about what happened to him on his own radio show yesterday. Talkingpointsmemo calls it The Medved Meltdown.
My favorite comments here at this blog:
* "Who is this "Medved" that you speak of. I don't believe there's a radio host named 'Medved.'"
* "Hmmm Are you sure it was Medved ? It doesn't sound like one of his shows. He mainly harps on Gay issues"
* "I'm a Republican, and a fan of Michael Medved, and I must say regretfully that I agree with you. Not on social security, as I am for the president's plan; but Michael completely lost it. He is normally a excellent debater, but he completely lost it with you. I don't know if he was ill prepared, or what. I only caught the part of the debate you describe in your blog, but that was all I need."
I'm sure you can come up with something very clever to say to Michael Medved today. Send a little email to Medved and offer to take him out to lunch with Congressman Chris Chocola or something.
UPDATE: I've got a better idea.... call Congressman Chocola's office and leave a message, ask him to call you back---and leave Michael Medved's number.
Chocola: 202 225-3195 CORRECTION 202 225-3915
Medved: 800 955 1776
I'll be trolling the comments for better suggestions... CORRECTION As has been noted, I won't be trolling, rather lurking.... see I'm still getting the hang of this :-)
My favorite comments here at this blog:
* "Who is this "Medved" that you speak of. I don't believe there's a radio host named 'Medved.'"
* "Hmmm Are you sure it was Medved ? It doesn't sound like one of his shows. He mainly harps on Gay issues"
* "I'm a Republican, and a fan of Michael Medved, and I must say regretfully that I agree with you. Not on social security, as I am for the president's plan; but Michael completely lost it. He is normally a excellent debater, but he completely lost it with you. I don't know if he was ill prepared, or what. I only caught the part of the debate you describe in your blog, but that was all I need."
I'm sure you can come up with something very clever to say to Michael Medved today. Send a little email to Medved and offer to take him out to lunch with Congressman Chris Chocola or something.
UPDATE: I've got a better idea.... call Congressman Chocola's office and leave a message, ask him to call you back---and leave Michael Medved's number.
Chocola: 202 225-3195 CORRECTION 202 225-3915
Medved: 800 955 1776
I'll be trolling the comments for better suggestions... CORRECTION As has been noted, I won't be trolling, rather lurking.... see I'm still getting the hang of this :-)
posted by Hans Riemer at 9:56 AM
48 Comments:
What's strange about Medved is that I can still remember him co-hosting a knock-off movie review show on PBS (I think) after Siskel & Ebert went mainstream, and he was very non-controversial. Then, in the span of a few short years, he seemed to have a massive mental breakdown of some kind - including his affect - and re-emerged first as a socially concious critic, and then as a right-wing nut. Is there a good bio on this guy that he didn't write himself? What happened?
I'm not sure if the chronology matches but Medved describes a horrifying "Death Wish"-redolent experience in his book Hollywood Vs America that could explain his conversion from mild-mannered movie critic to fire-breathing cultural vigilante.
The scene where he describes the desecration of a picnic he was enjoying with his family by a bunch of hoodlums playing rap music on their ghettoblaster, is truly one of those passages, that only someone with a heart of pure stone could read without laughing.
Medved is constantly talking about how religious he is and how non-religious people are less moral and honest than religious folk. Yet he constantly lies on his program.
Maybe someone with a better understanding of Judiasm and the Talmud could point out to me where God says that it is ok to lie if it furthers the GOP's cause.
Mike S
If mean old Medved doesn't believe in the congressman, maybe it's time for a little miracle on 34th Street. Snail mail doesn't make it to the Hill anymore, so why not send cards and letters to Chocola but addressed to Medved? Thousands of them....
Hans, trolls post, your just lurking for comments and suggestions.
Medved's mightset is very easy to understand when you study the history of self-hating Jews who prostitute themselves as front-people apologists for extremist Christians. That's why he always goes on and on defending Christianity in public life.
Medved's self hating routine is best analogized to that of a black minstrel performer who hates black people and doesn't consider himself one of them.
This explains his endless fascination with "Hollywood" (aka: Jews) corruption Christian values, the same B.S. we heard 50 years ago from fundie Christian righties like Joe McCarthy on the Senate floor.
It's the same shtick, and it pays very very well. The fact he is Jewish and willing to indict Hollywood is why he's supported by the Christian extremists.
Same as Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts. Find a "stereotype" willing to confirm the xenophobic racism, and it pays quite nicely.
Medved's conversion is quite easy to understand when you compare the attention-getting and earning potential of a "non-contoversial movie critic" to that of a "ranting right-wing nut job." Medved saw a niche he could carve out for himself and he took it. I am a little cynical about the sincerity of Michael Savage's beliefs for the same reason. Of course, the scary thing is that once you adopt an identity like this you do end up becoming it.
Oh yeah, like there's really a radio screamer named "Savage."
Oh, wait a minute, there is.
Oh, wait another minute, that's not his real name.
What's with these right-wing media personalities using fake names?
Hans, I don't get it. I didn't hear the debate. So you got Medved on some quotes that the president and a congressman made. Big Deal! What about the facts as related to your stance? What about the quotes you make about retirees will have more money in the future if we do nothing and the system goes bankrupt (which is total jibberish)?
I might be wrong but it sounds to me like you were better prepared with newspaper clippings but didn't really discuss facts. Did you discuss how you would fund the failing system? Did you discuss the donations from the AARP to RTV? Did you discuss that your organization doesn't actually represent the views of the majority of the younger generations?
So you got him on a couple of quotes. Who cares? How did you forward yours and the AARP's position (not that of the younger generations)?
Some guy said:
Hans, I don't get it. I didn't hear the debate. So you got Medved on some quotes that the president and a congressman made.
The entire marketing plan for the President's agenda keeps getting waylaid, because the President's plan involves stalling massive benefit cuts in 30 years by making slightly smaller cuts and installing huge deficits now. "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger Today" was funny in the 1940s when it came from Popeye's neighbor, but it's not funny now when it comes from the leader of the free world.
Public backlash against the plan grows so quickly and maintains such strength that the Rove Machine has to run public polls to find a new name that people don't immediately hate. Then the Republican staffers go to papers and news TV and tell them that any continued use of the old phrase is "bias."
They're playing word-games with our future and their lackeys froth at the mouth when it's pointed out that the whole game is a bunch of hooey.
Anonymous -
" Did you discuss how you would fund the failing system? Did you discuss the donations from the AARP to RTV? Did you discuss that your organization doesn't actually represent the views of the majority of the younger generations? "
Dude - That's pathetic. You're arguing, "did you engage a guy who makes crap up all the time in a conversation about reality?"
Even if it was futile, he did.
But you're just trolling for suckers because you'll never be satisfied no matter what anyone responds.
It's hard to stay on message if the person you're debating relies on outright lies that you have to spend time refuting.
Hans, I don't get it. So you caught the guy in an outright lie which he then covered up with another outright lie which he still hasn't addressed. What about the facts as related to Jibberish (which I think is Republican for gibberish)? Why aren't you coming up with a plan to stop the UFO invasion that is right around the corner? Could it be that you are just part of AARP's plan to facilitate the UFO invasion in exchange for access to the coccoons and the life-extending energy they contain? So you caught him in a couple of lies, so what? That doesn't make you Steve Guttenberg or anything. At best you're Wilford Brimley.
Singularity,
That was pretty funny. I agree from what he has written that he got Medved. I really don't care what the program is called personal accounts or privatization of SS I think we all understand we are talking about the same thing. The only thing that matters is the details of how the plan works not the name of it.
I have seen people time after time talk about how they is against the Bush plan to change SS but they won't give a plan or idea of thier own. To just say NO to anything someone says doesn't advance the conversation anywhere. Hans is great for saying no and towing the line but what are his ideas to solve the problem? I know the standard democrat response is raise taxes but there are other solutions that are more effective.
And to point out that the future retirees will have more money than the retirees today if we do nothing and let the system go bankrupt is gibberish. Yes, they will have more dollars but the buying power of those dollars will be significantly lower than the dollars today.
Why should liberals put forward a plan? We aren't the ones who want to gut SS. Heck, if liberals put up a plan, then Bushco will just steal the idea, make a couple of cosmetic changes and call it a BOLD NEW PLAN. Let Bushco either come up with a plan the people will like or let 'em swing in the wind on the one they've chosen.
Anonymous who doesn't "get it":
You don't get it because you apparently didn't read Hans's first post? That's my guess; my other guess isn't a polite one.
Hans was there to debate Social Security, when Medved interrupts to refute Hans's correct claim that Republicans desire to privatize Social Security. Who's off-topic? No one. And though it's admittedly an argument that has little to do with whether Bush's (still vague) plan is any good, it's host Medved who steered the conversation.
I get annoyed every time I read Hans writings. I don't understand how someone under 35 could support this wretched system.
Gen X gets totally screwed from hell to breakfast in this system.
Gen X has to repay the Trust Fund and then deal with SS's insolvency.
Instead of Rock the Vote arguing about fixign the problem now while other generations can share the pain, Hans lives in Ozland where the Trust Fund has magic dollars they appear when needed and SS nevers run out of money.
Just once I'd like to hear Hans stick up for us Xers and point out that we're the ones who get screwed by SS.
For some reason I was confusing Michael Medved with Neil Gabler, another movie critic and author of this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=13245
If a system will continue to bring in more revenue than it gives for another 70 years, give or take, and even after that, it wouldn't take much to bring the system back in balance, then why in hell should Democrats propose anything now to bring Social Security into the black while they're not in power, and, more important, while the Republican leadership actively seeks to block Democratic initiative?
Because it's a basic fact that over 65 years will pass before Social Security as it stands now goes in the red (not the bullshit term "goes bankrupt"), Republicans want to lie and use soundly refuted accounting tricks to claim that we'll be in trouble as soon as 15 years from now.*
Democrats are counting on a change in leadership before those 65-70 years are up. So, no new plan.
*(give or take some years, depending on whichever bogus accounting trick the Bush Administration speaker is using today).
just for fun, can you post something completely opinionated and rehashed from the "themes to be repeated by every republican with a mic" sent out daily from emporer cheney, so that we can all agree and curse the liberal media (except fox, of course they have direct sat-link to god). and maybe you can also delete any comments that don't kiss ur ass or ask you out for tea and crumpets
I correct myself: it's a basic fact, unless Bush is spending or has already spent, the money that Social Security is taking in.* (I wonder how many fiscal conservatives held their noses to vote for Bush and the Republicans, who've passed the last 4 or 5 budgets (I admit ignorance regarding this #).)
"hoo," you made the claim that Gen X (including people of age 33-48?) is getting "screwed by SS." How do you mean?
Aaron
*(This potential for raiding led to Al Gore's desire to place Social Security money securely out of the general budget, in a "lockbox.")
Aaron said - "If a system will continue to bring in more revenue than it gives for another 70 years, give or take, and even after that, it wouldn't take much to bring the system back in balance..."
Aaron, according to most realiable sources and Social Security in 2017 they will spend more than they bring in and in 2041 they will only bring in enough to meet 75% of the commitment. (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee05-pr.htm)
For people my age and younger this is a critical issue. I will be the one affected by this. Doesn't it make sense to address this issue now for the younger generations or should we wait until it's to late?
Do you think a change in leadership will make this plan go away? It is not a republican or democrat issue it is purely a mathmatical issue.
Gen X is not getting screwed: they'll get screwed if their benefits are cut, but right now that's eminently fixable with minimal fiddling or pain.
Social security will never be in the red either, really. It has constant funding. What's going to happen is that benefits will be cut because it can only ship out as much funding as it takes in after the trust fund is exhausted.
That is, benefits will be cut in several decades unless someone fixes it. The solution proposed by Republicans appears to be to cut benefits as soon as possible. It's really sick and depressing.
One version of the Republican numbers had benefits under their kooky plan remaning the same on the basis of an optimistic projection of economic growth. That same economic growth would have meant solvency for social security if it was left absolutely untouched.
At one point I had plans to move to the US to join some relatives, but you guys are really in trouble. I wish you luck.
If you are interested in what young people who actually care about this issue are doing go to www.secureourfuture.org
Students for Saving Social Security.
I just got off the phone with Medved. I told him that the reason I lost respect for him was because his fealty to the GOP had become more important to him than God. I used this and his current show's lies about Bolton as an example of his lies.
I could practically feel the spit coming through the phone.
Mike S
Aaron:
The Trust Fund is essentially a collection of promises that Congress will find money in about 10 years to repay it. It has no real economic assets. That is not disputed by anyone from the left or right. So when SS needs to tap into the Trust Fund, Congress will either raise taxes, cut benefits or borrow more(most likely a combination of all 3). Seeing as Gen Xers will be in our 30-40's and close to our peak earning years, we'll have to pay to finance the TF gap. Which of course does nothing to fix SS for when we retire.
Bush's spending is a debacle that we'll pay for later. Medicare will be a disaster too. But the idea that the SS Trust Fund was tangible and spent by Bush is incorrect. Every President and Congress has spent the trust fund since it was created.
Gen Xers get a bad deal b/c
a) We'll actually have to provide the real value to the Trust Fund which means higher taxes for us.
b) We'll have to pay higher taxes and get LESS Benefits at the SAME TIME when we retire.
1. Trust fund are legal treasury securities. The government is obligated to pay them back
2. Issue of Private v. Personal accounts is important because the change in GOP language is an attempt to fool people into thinking that they aren't going to privatize--they are--that's what this whole debate is about. Its called deception and it should stop.
3. Trust fund depletion is not a sure fact--it is a projection. The SSA puts it at 2041 in the middle case scenario. The Congressional Budget Office projections, which are non-partisan, puts the depletion point at 2052. These numbers have, until this year, moved back each year further and further into the future (this years SSA numbers were rigged anyway).
4. Add all these fake facts together and what do you get? The GOP case for privatising the system--a windfall benefit to Wall Street, who will clean up in fees and a loss for everyone else.
I keep reading quotes like "The government will need to find money" and "the government is obligated to pay back" the trust fund, but it seems the vast majority of you who are posting are forgetting a few basic tenants of our government:
1) Government does not create or find money, it only taxes its citizens for operating capital. Therefore the money that is in the treasury is not the government's to find but is in fact the people's.
2) The president DOES NOT spend a dime of the general fund or the SS fund, it is the job of the congress to spend tax dollars, the Prez can only submit requests and budgets. If you're upset with spending look at those who have their hands on the purse strings.
As a member of GenX I find it disturbing that I read so many of my peers advocating the revival of a system that can not mathematically or economically continue without a total collapse by the time we gain benefits. Unless we all start having lots of kids right now there is no way SS can continue in its current form. Thats a fact.
Sean,
It is not a mathematical fact that Social Security will not be able to pay off its beneficiaries--its only a projection of what will happen some thirty five years in the future. Its not a for sure thing. Indeed, the best case scenario has the system maintaining a surplus all the way out for fifty years. Nor does ANY scenario have the system "totally collapsing" At worst, if absolutely nothing is done, Social Security will pay only 73% of benefits until some time later in the future, when it will again pay 100% of benefits based on population changes.
In fact, every year until this one, the SSA projections showed the benefit cut date moving out. This year they showed it moving one year closer--how? Simple, the SSA decided to make the statistic meaningless by setting the projection date at infinity. Anyone who knows anything about finanical projections knows that is ridiculous . One cannot predict eternity.
As a citizen in a democracy, it is your obligation to remain educated about the facts--not to just buy what Bush says. Get the facts right before shooting off your mouth.
Has anyone every heard of a "member of GenX" refer to themselves as a member of GenX before?
Not me.
Mike S
1) Government does not create or find money, it only taxes its citizens for operating capital. Therefore the money that is in the treasury is not the government's to find but is in fact the people's.
Considering that the government is in effect owned by the people, isn't this just a wee bit of bluster? That whole "by the people" schtick not mean anything to you?
As a member of GenX I find it disturbing that I read so many of my peers advocating the revival of a system that can not mathematically or economically continue without a total collapse by the time we gain benefits.
That's a lot of certainty there, considering that median projections show the SSF to be perfectly solvent out well past when our generation is dead and buried. If you replace "can not mathematically or economically continue" with "might not continue", then you are merely displaying a case of overreaction, rather than ignorant misinterpretation.
Well, there is that little line in the Constitution that states that no one is allowed to question the US's ability to repay its debts. Meaning that, yes, we will find a way to pay for Social Security. (From that pesky 14th Amendment, section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Bush did question the validity, during one of his let's-end-Social-Security stump speeches, but no one's going to impeach him, as, well, for one thing, it's not an ironclad statement he made.
And sean foushee, you are so correct in point #2, so let's look who has the hand on the pursestrings: the Republicans. For the last 4+ years. And they have controlled both legislative houses since 1994.
I'm also a bit unsure as to what you mean in point 1. We the People elect our Representatives and Senators so that they, you know, represent us and therefore determine who and what are taxed, and how that money is spent. So they are the people already, representationally speaking. And some of that money, of course, comes from sources other than US citizens and corporations, but you are correct, it's "our" money.
So, if we don't like the way who's controlling the pursestrings now, we elect different people to represent us. Excellent idea! I recommend we elect different leadership ASAP, beginning in 2006.
I strongly disagree with your idea that Social Security will "totally" collapse under the current system. I don't even think the skewed SSA says that will happen. But with Bush's plan, I don't see how Social Security won't collapse. Something having to do with our needing to incur trillions of $$ in debt to move money to private accounts that aren't guaranteed to do as well as Social Security, as well as with the Bush plan's cutting our guaranteed benefits. (Plus there's the extra hidden possibility that future Republicans (and weaselly Democrats) might cut the poor's benefits because the Bush "Social Security" system will effectively become a type of welfare instead of the insurance it is now.)
That's my question to sean foushee and hoo: how will what you know of the Bush plan save Social Security?
What a bunch of crap, Hans. You have been trying to gain momentum for months now with your AARP agenda and hardly anyone was hitting this blog. All of a sudden your blog is being hit every minute by a bunch of posts that sound very similar.
Oh yeah, you better milk this Medved thing until you actually meet up with someone that knows what they're talking about again. Why don't you attach a link to your appearance on Neil Cavuto? How come we never heard you say a word about that appearance?
Everyone that works at RTV that all of a sudden started posting on this sight to prop up Hans needs to get back to work and let the real youth say what needs to be said.
RTV and AARP does not have my best interest in mind.
Has anyone bought any of those dumbass "I love SS" shirts, yet? I can't wait to see someone wearing one of those shirts so I can laugh my ass off.
Keep following the Hans and AARP propaganda, sheep.
This is hilarious. Not even the Democrat politicians argue the fact that changes need to be made and that Social Security is heading into major financial problems.
There are working models of privatization available for everyone to see. Do a search for Galveston County and Chile privatization and see for yourselves. This is not a mystery whether it will work or not. It is working. You can keep running your mouth on and on about how terrible the stock market is, but read about the people in galveston, Tx. See for yourself how much of a success privatization has been for them.
My generation contributed to the trust fund by paying more in FICA contributions than the current outlays require. If there will be no money to pay it back, this is mostly because enormous deficit in the general fund. Here I agree: the currect foolish deficit spending is a bad deal for the next generation -- and probably for my generation too.
"As a member of GenX I find it disturbing that I read so many of my peers advocating the revival of a system that can not mathematically or economically continue without a total collapse by the time we gain benefits"
Well, you know, we boomers aren't idiots. We could see the demographic crunch coming all the way back in the '70s. Back in '83 or so, we did something about it. We raised the payroll tax. Ever since, we've been paying more money in taxes than needed to fund current benefits, in order to save up money for the time when there aren't enough taxes coming in to cover current benefits.
Doing that solved the problem, according to current projections, until at least 2042, likely longer.
At some point, the program might need to be fiddled with, a bit, to keep it going longer. It would be foolish to do the fiddling now, because trying to make detailed plans about something that's going to happen 37 years from now is impossible.
The REAL problem we face NOW is the general fund deficit. Don't blame me for that--I didn't vote for the incumbent cretins. I'll bet you did, though.
rea - thats the whole point, what do you suggest we do? Raise the payroll tax again? Why not just propose a plan to cut jobs because thats exactly what that will do. You're right that the problem is the spending but I haven't heard one person except myself suggest that we rein in the spending, only cries from Hans et al that we should repeal tax cuts. In order to solve the problem you must address the problem, not just throw more money at the program.
Does bush and the Republicans spend too much money, YES! Did I vote for Bush, in 2004 I did, in 2000 I did not (Harry Browne got that honor). My reason for voting for Bush was because the Libertarian candidate was an isolationist and Kerry was a horrible choice on the Democratic ticket. It might actually surprise people to know that I voted for Clinton in 1996, but then again since I voted for Bush I must be an evil person. I'm not happy with the spending Bush is creating, and I let me representatives know almost on a weekly basis.
"...but then again since I voted for Bush I must be an evil person..."
Evilness is one reason I can think of that would lead one to have voted for Bush in '04. Stupidity is another.
But I know plenty of people who voted for Bush who aren't evil; some of them aren't even stupid.
There's one uniting factor I see in those Bush voters who are neither evil nor stupid: ignorance -- either willful or otherwise.
So I guess that leaves you with three choices, Sean.
Man, what a break down in informative discussion. I guess when you run out of ideas and can't counter the opposing view of another, it's time to start throwing out names.
Just because someone arrives at a different conclusion than you, they are evil, stupid, or ignorant. Gees, how inviting. I wish I had more friends like you. We could sit around together and make fun of people, eat ice cream all night, put some pizza roles in the oven, hate men for being men or hate women for not liking me, pop pimples on eachothers face, read the enquirer and believe it, not take responsibility for anything, etc......
Yippeee
Well when you finally realize that the facts don't support your claim the only thing you can do is name call.
Pop Quiz for the last three posters (and their ideological brethren):
1. Was Saddam Hussein involved in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?
2. Did Saddam Hussein have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) when the US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003?
3. Was there a consensus opinion among international weapons inspectors that he did? A majority opinion?
4. Do the majority of middle class Americans pay more or less in taxes under George W. Bush than they did under Clinton?
5. Do military veterans and their families receive a) more, b) less, or c) the same amount of pay and benefits as they did before Bush?
6. How many companies did the "CEO President" lead to success in his business career? How many were failing when he left the helm?
7. The Social Security Fund will go bankrupt in as few as seven years, due mainly to changes in the demographics of the US workforce: true or false?
8. To the nearest billion, tell me the estimated amount in bonds the US government will have to sell to finance the changes in Social Security proposed by Bush. If you can't give a precise answer, please explain why.
Bonus Question:
9. What pithy phrase did George W. Bush use to refer to those same government bonds in a speech about Social Security privatization last month?
If you can answer all of these questions correctly, and you still voted for Bush, then you aren't ignorant. Now you'll have to convince me that you aren't stupid or evil.
1. Was Saddam Hussein involved in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?
No. Case was never made that he was. I would love to see anything you may have that would prove the gov't was trying to make this case. Case was made that Iraq could supply terrorists with WMD or the know-how to produce it, and he was supporting terrorists attacking Israel and other places in the Middle East.
In addition, he was also in violation of the cease fire agreement established in the first Gulf War, which in itself is grounds for continuation of pre-cease fire conditions.
2. Did Saddam Hussein have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) when the US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003?
I agree that only small quantities have been found, but that is not to say they didn't exist. This is the same guy who used WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people not too many years before the invasion.
Also, the inspectors did find and unanimously agreed that Saddamm did maintain his facilities to produce WMD, which could be produced in a very short time frame.
3. Was there a consensus opinion among international weapons inspectors that he did? A majority opinion?
As stated above, they did agree that he maintained the capability to produce them.
In addition, the gov'ts of the weapons inspectors did believe the Saddamm harbored WMD. The list includes, but is not limited to England, France, America, Spain, and many more. Oh yeah, lets not forget the UN. Even they believed he was hiding WMD.
4. Do the majority of middle class Americans pay more or less in taxes under George W. Bush than they did under Clinton?
Of course, we pay less. My family is middle class, and I would love for you to tell me that I paid more taxes under Bush than Clinton. Please explain where my taxes went up. I wish I could post my returns for you. Just to mention a couple of reasons why I pay less: 1. Child credit 2. The lowest tax bracket was shifted up so that less of my money was taxed at a higher tax rate. 3. The marriage penalty is gone.
In addition, I was able to purchase a house with interests rates so low. I got a rate of 5.1% and in 1.5 years my house has gone up $30,000 in value.
5. Do military veterans and their families receive a) more, b) less, or c) the same amount of pay and benefits as they did before Bush?
b) MORE!!!
Funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
In Bush’s first three years, funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
go to the following link to check for yourself. This comes from factcheck.org, which is the public policy center for the University of Pennsylvania (far from what you would call a right wing organization).
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
6. How many companies did the "CEO President" lead to success in his business career? How many were failing when he left the helm?
Off hand, I can think of the the Texas Rangers and Harken Energy. You can question whether either were successful or not, but I fail to see your point. What company did your heros Clinton, Kerry, or Gore sit as CEO? Hmmmmm. If being CEO of a company and running it successfully were a pre-requisite for president, then I guess your guys wouldn't be qualified.
7. The Social Security Fund will go bankrupt in as few as seven years, due mainly to changes in the demographics of the US workforce: true or false?
Now, I don't see your point here. Nobody disputes that at some point SS will go bankrupt if left as is. I haven't heard anyone say in 7 years. It's true that it will be running in the red by this point, but I don't think bankrupt. I think a more accurate timeline might be 2041 for bankrupcy. I don't hear any politician debated the fact that SS is in financial difficulty. Even Bill Clinton tried to get support for reforming SS.
By the way, there will be 2 workers to 1 retiree unless aliens land and start paying into social security. When SS was created, there were 15 workers to every retiree.
8. To the nearest billion, tell me the estimated amount in bonds the US government will have to sell to finance the changes in Social Security proposed by Bush. If you can't give a precise answer, please explain why.
First of all, its not the job of the president to control spending.
Tell me how much the next president will have to finance to fix a problem that will get much worse the longer we wait to fix it?
Bonus Question:
9. What pithy phrase did George W. Bush use to refer to those same government bonds in a speech about Social Security privatization last month?
Who cares? Just like a dem. Lets talk about semantics instead of the real issue. I'm glad I don't know the answer to your dumb bonus question. If I did, it would prove that I don't care about the real issue.
I guess now i'm classified as evil. Oh well.
good link about Saddamm's weapons and links to terrorists.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Yeah, anyone who can't recognize the monumental effort this administration made to tie Sadaam to 9/11 is truly ignorant, an asshole or, in the poster above's case, both.
Pot, meet the kettle.
You want to talk about "ignorance", you're a classic example of it, pal.
Read the 9/11 Commission report sometime.
I love it. Show me a quote or anything the administration did to tie Saddam directly to 9/11. If the administration made a monumental effort, it should be very simple to provide some sort of proof.
Oh yeah, I take being called an asshole by you as a compliment. If that is your only answer, obviously the debate has been won.
O.K. I played your little elementary quiz game. Now play mine unless you are scared at what the conclusion may be.
1. Did Saddam ever have stock piles of WMD?
2. Did Saddam use WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people?
3. Did Saddam commit genocide to the likes that has not been seen since Hitler?
4. Did Saddam show proof of his dismantling his WMD after the first Gulf War?
5. Was Saddam purposely misleading inspectors after the first Gulf War?
6. Did Saddam maintain his capabilities to produce WMD up until the invasion?
7. Did Saddam invade a neighboring country to loot it and retain its riches? Did Saddam have plans to invade other oil rich neighboring countries before stopped by the U.S.?
8. Did Saddam hatch a plot to assinate an American President?
9. Was Saddam paying the famlies of terrorist to attack innocent civilians of America's allies?
10. Was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a member of Al Qaida and main source of terrorism in Iraq today, in Iraq before the war began?
11. Was Saddam in violation of the cease fire agreement established after the first Gulf War?
12. Was Saddam paying off members of the French and Russian Governments through the oil-for-food program? Was anyone from the U.N. taking bribes of oil from Saddam through the oil-for-food program?
I have several Bonus questions:
13. I'm 28. How much of a return do you think I will see from SS if the system stays the same and I retire when I am 65?
14. How much does my wife collect from SS if I die at 45? What are my options with the money I paid into the system?
15. How much does my daughter collect if I die at 45 and she is 18 years old?
16. How many workers will be paying into the system per retiree when the baby boomers retire? What was the worker to retiree ratio when the system was created? Has the ratio ever been higher than when the system was created?
17. How many tax increases has the SS system needed to stay afloat?
18. When collected, where does the SS tax money go?
Good luck. I know there won't be any takers. Reality is a tough thing to deal with when it doesn't line up with your emotions.
P.S. I promise I won't call anyone an asshole for answering the questions.
Got awefully quiet in here all of a sudden. Where is all that monumental evidence? Anyone home?
Responsible, don't hold your breath.
Post a Comment
<< Home