The whole social security thing is a strawman to get angry Democrats off the stolen election kick.

Investigations into election fraud have not slowed down and something is bound to become public sooner than later.

with the MSNBC daily poll now running 73% Against Bush's plan to Steal our Retirement Money, and his general approval rating teetering at 50%, Georgie might be a tad tight (nerves, not booze) for his speech tonite. I think we might even see a bit of the 1st Debate George, indignant spoiled brat threatening to take his ball and go home if he can't be quarterback.

It is also a strawman for the lack of Health Care coverage for millions of people and the need to reform this system. Instead he talks about something that does not need reform.

Pat Robertson is pushing SS reform. I caught five minutes of his show today, in which he said that Democrats are behind the times on SS, living in ancient history of long ago. I guess in the New World Order we will no longer protect the old people, disadvantaged and handicapped. He further stated that we are going to divide ourselves further with the youth of this Country by not supporting changes. Yeah, Pat, I'm sure if you keep preaching the WH mantra, you will divide us. Hmmm, wonder how much money Pat stuffs in his back pocket.

T2, do you really think Bush knows that 73% are against his SS proposal? I doubt it. It would make no difference if 95% were against it. He wants what he wants, and the opinions of others are of no consequence.

So far, you folks have been pretty good contrarian indicators. Whatever you say, generally the opposite is true or takes place.

You thought Kerry would beat Bush.
You thought the Iraq elections wouldn't happen.
You thought the economy would be in the dumper.

On and on it goes. A broken record of being wrong. Again and again. Over and over. Pete and repeat were on a boat, Pete fell off; who's left?

I'm thinking with all the negativity you have about Social Security Choice, it's a given to happen.

You thought Kerry would beat Bush.

Nobody ever went broke overstimating the stupidity of the American public.

You thought the Iraq elections wouldn't happen.

I thought they would be a bloodbath. Instead, only about 40 people got killed, which is a pretty middlin' day of killing in Iraq. Only after a year or so of being desensitized could that seem like an unqualified success.

You thought the economy would be in the dumper.

It's hardly fantastic, muck. And if you think we're just going to GROW our way out from under this mountain of debt, you're overmedicated. Serious pain is in the mid-term forecast.

Muckdog likes killing Iraqi children for pure lies.

He likes Bush. He likes killing and and lying torture. He voted for it.

You are a total disgrace of an American. You know nothing of what this country stands for and are totally cluess morally. You're an evil dumbass who makes me ashamed a fellow citizen shares this country with all of us. You've humiliated us all before the entire world.

It's revealing that they dubbed the invasion "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not "Operation WMDs." They knew they were lying all along.

Senate does not need a filibuster--with at least five Republican defections, if Democrats hold, it's DOA even on an up and down vote. House may have enough Republicans opposing it as well to kill it on a straight vote. At the moment, there is one D congressman (Allen, of course) who supports the plan--worse yet, he's signing up as the leader of the "bipartisan" faction (faction of one, but who's counting?). There may be two to four wavering Ds in the house and one in the senate. There are a lot more opposing Rs to more than make up for the difference, although some of them have been stronarmed recently and we may get another version of the Medicare fraud vote. But, as of now, the bill is DOA in both chambers irrespectively of the State of the Union speech.

Paradox:

Good post. I hope that Georgie's stand on Social Security will be the beginning of his end -- and that of the Repuglicans.

Jonathan.

Whaaaaaaat, Muckdog? What did you say?

Matt, you know the GDP is at the target rate the Fed likes, right? Not too hot, not too cold. This is what economists strive for. A 3-4% GDP.

Which is fine. But that's not NEARLY enough growth to justify all the tax cuts that supposedly were required to get us there. Just since G-Dub took office, we've racked up nearly two trillion dollars in new debt. We have to pay that shit back, muck.

3% GDP growth is not nearly fast enough growth to replenish those funds without some fairly sizable tax hikes (which in turn will likely slow the growth rate back down).

See, this is the problem with supply-side economics: Sure, if you cut taxes, the economy will speed up. But it won't speed up enough to offset all the debt that was incurred in the process.

That's why, if you want to really juice the economy, you don't cut taxes--you just pay people. Not rich people, who will invest the money--poor people, who will spend it. It works.

But it doesn't pay off the Republican donor base, so it's never selected as a "pro-growth" solution.

I do not think giving poor people some extra bucks to spend at Walmart would have turned the US economy around after the tech stock bubble burst and the 9/11 economic meltdown. We were in danger of going into a severe, prolonged recession, which is why Greenspan cut interest rates to 40-year lows and the tax cuts for the "rich" (translation: executives and professionals who work hard for a living) were necessary to prevent people from stuffung their remaining dollars into mattresses. We incurred some deficits. So what? We have had deficits before, particularly when Democrats controlled Congress in the sixties and 70's. The point was we avoided a worldwide recession.

We incurred some deficits. So what? We have had deficits before, particularly when Democrats controlled Congress in the sixties and 70's.

The biggest deficits as a percentage of GDP were under Reagan and Bush. In real dollars, with full GOP control of every branch of government, we are running the largest deficit in adjusted dollars ever. Again, this shit has to be paid back. That means that you selfish fuckers are loading this debt onto the backs of the young.

That means that you selfish fuckers are loading this debt onto the backs of the young.

They don't care

Republicans win on greed and selfishness. They are antithetical to Christ and anything spiritual.

Their mindset is destroying this country. We are a nation in decline , economically, intellectually, and morally. This is not "news". It's well accepted by the population that our best days are behind us. Consider the fetish with WW2 movies - our glory days - and we know it.

I think the following "Dear Abby" letter just about sums Georgie and the GOP.

Jonathan.

Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit card bills and, if I try to pay them off at the end of the month, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He tells me to pay the minimum amount and let our kids worry about the rest. But already, we can barely keep up with paying even the interest.

Also, he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.

Also, he has gotten religion in a big way, although I don't quite understand it. One week he hangs out with Catholics, and the next week with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

And now he has been going to the gym an awful lot and is into wearing uniforms and cowboy outfits. I hate to think what that means.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign an oath of loyalty to him. It's just so horribly creepy!

Can you help?

Signed ..... Lost in DC
--------------

Dear Lost:

Stop whining, Laura. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with him for four more years!

Signed......Abby

Paradox,
one thing you didn't mention, and Juan Cole discuses this, the Iraqi vote was a vote AGAINST BUSH. These brave people voted because to them their vote meant that the US must leave - The iraqi people voted for us to leave. They are going to be very angry when we stay and continue to kill them.
Also, don't underestimate the cowardlyness of the Dems. See Josh Michael, some Dems are deserting. We have to keep up the pressure on these cowards.

Um ..Who won what in the Iraqi elections? Are they still counting the ballots?

"do you really think Bush knows that 73% are against his SS proposal? I doubt it. It would make no difference if 95% were against it. He wants what he wants, and the opinions of others are of no consequence."

Judith
I'm sure he, and "Bush's brain" are well aware of how many people are opposed. And it's not determinative to them because they have a larger agenda. They are playing at putting on a show of "fiscal responsibility" when they know it won't fly, plus, as others have commented, they are playing to the under-30 vote by trying to instill fear of economic collapse at the time that age group reaches retirement, PLUS they are keeping the Dems occupied ("Hey, look over here --shiny!") while they commence to "starve the beast" in many other ways.

Matt, don't bother engaging those arguments on GDP growth. First off, GDP is a nearly worthless metric, especially when looked at in isolation. Rebuilding houses destroyed by fires in San Diego and Hurricanes in Florida is GDP growth too. Someone hires a hitman to kill someone, that factors in to GDP also. Hell, if we had the air force regularly bomb some houses we could have great GDP growth. Buying bombs, rebuilding houses. Wheee! Also, all of the money that is being spent domestically to buy the stuff going to Iraq is alos part of GDP growth. Does anyone really think that is a healthy thing for the economy? Especially since it's all getting added directly on to the deficit. What a stupid idea.

Secondly, GDP growth is a far less interesting piece of information than GDP growth per capita. Recently saw some research coming out of Goldman Sachs, their economists conclude that most of the trememndous GDP growth in the US over the last ten years is primarily a function of population size and growth. If you run the numbers on GDP growth per capita, most of the European countries have healthier economies than the US!

Once again, a reminder. Don't engage the conservatives on their terms. Think about what the frame of their arguements is, and decide if you are willing to accept it or not. Arguing about how best to reform the tort system accepts the premise that it is broken.

Pardon the segue: on the subject of tort reform. Isn't it odd that their is no talk about changing the rules to make it harder for corporations to drag out court proceedings for years even when they are in the wrong? Frivolous lawsuits? How about frivolous defenses?

Judith, of course Bush doesn't care about the desires of the American public. He only (this assumes he is actually in control) cares about his devine message and his ego. He'll cite the polls when they favor him (seldom) and claim he doesn't see them when they don't (usually)..........but Karl does. Anyone foolish enough to think Rove was only concerned with winning Bush's second term and now he's done is dreaming. Rove doesn't work for Bush. He has a higher calling...and it ain't Jesus.

I'm all with you on the irrelevance of GDP as measuring stick of economic health, Daniel. My point was simply that the "sweet spot" that muck says economists love isn't as "sweet" when you have to pay off a bunch of debt and you refuse to raise taxation rates.

Well said paradox.

This pathetic excuse for a president, this vile war criminal is already the lamest of lame ducks. He's just too stupid to realize it yet.

Bush's war-on-the-poor Social Security plan DOA? Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

Merle is right. The long game is what needs to be watched. Face it, Karl Rove wouldn't let Bush go this far unless 1. He really thinks that they can 'medicare' a SS phase out bill through Congress in the middle of the night without paying a political price. Or 2. This is to set up something to come later, either as a 'compromise' that the K Street groups have loaded with so much fine print that won't be discovered until after the bill is safely passed. Or 3. also possible is the 'noble' loss, to scare the under 30 voters into thinking that the Republicans are protecting their future and to set up a future phase out after 2008 by the next GOP president.

Don't get too caught up in the Social Security hoopla. There is a school of thought that says it is all a smoke screen to distract from the war criminal's big plans in foreign policy. Domestic concerns are back-burner material for him. He and his fellow warmongers the neocons are focussed on adventures in the Middle East. He wants to be remembered as the president who brought a new order to the world, or he'll bring the world down in flames trying.

The long game is what needs to be watched.

Since our politicians have decided to play purely reactive politics, I doubt that watching the long game will do any good.

That's very well said, Matt.

Jeez, who fed that fat Iraqi bird the Kool-Aid?? She's loving it.

Jeez, who fed that fat Iraqi bird the Kool-Aid?? She's loving it.

Where would YOU rather be? Watching the SOTU, or in Iraq?

Thought so.

Jeez, who fed that fat Iraqi bird the Kool-Aid?? She's loving it.

Where would YOU rather be? Watching the SOTU, or in Iraq?

Thought so.
------------------------
Not sure what your point is. She's still a fat Iraqi bird who has swallowed the Bush warmonger "freedom" Kool-Aid, and as such she deserves our contempt. Great, so she can put her fat finger in the air. What about the 100,000 people who have been killed by Bush's misguided military?

Why doesn't she go and point her fat finger at one of the 14 new US military bases in Iraq that will be used to launch new attacks in the area, killing thousands upon thousands more people?

Senator Ried: "We need to make health care affordable, blah, blah, blah."

Nancy Pelosi: "Leave our Country safer for our children, blah, blah, blah."

Talk about plain vanilla responses.

Not sure what your point is.

Sorry. Point is, people might be sufficiently grateful to be whisked away from a hellhole to express gratitude, even if they were expressing gratitude to the people who--if you really think about it for a minute--actually created said hellhole to begin with.

Not sure what your point is.

Sorry. Point is, people might be sufficiently grateful to be whisked away from a hellhole to express gratitude, even if they were expressing gratitude to the people who--if you really think about it for a minute--actually created said hellhole to begin with.
-----------------

And that is one insipid point.

These POS criminals need to be stopped, not commended in any way, no matter how small.

And that is one insipid point.

Sorry again. Perhaps you haven't been around these parts much--I'm a pretty sardonic bastard; you can ask anyone. My attempts to empathize with your "fat bird" were not even remotely sincere.

These POS criminals need to be stopped, not commended in any way, no matter how small.

Look, aside from widespread--and I mean REALLY widespread--rioting, nothing will stop these criminals for another 1.75 years. Making jokes about their stage management is hardly a big deal.

Excellent entry. Way to put things back in perspective.

OK OK, so I switched on your web site by accident and jumped in feet first. Never mind.

But please do tell, what is going to happen in 1.75 years that will stop these people? Are you referring to mid-term elections?? The Diebold mid-term elections?

Paradox:

[...]and one day we will win back Congress and the Executive.

This Democratic Party? The one that associates itself with anti-Americanism? No. That party's lost its credibility as a force for idealism and freedom.

You'll have to start over.

Amazing, I wondered if people here could manage to come out and condemn free elections in Iraq, but you managed to do it.

Perhaps you'd prefer elections where only you get to vote ?

Freedom? Oh yeah, torture is freedom, war is peace, up is down. Having the government tell you who you can marry is freedom? Naw, don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what they do.

But please do tell, what is going to happen in 1.75 years that will stop these people? Are you referring to mid-term elections?? The Diebold mid-term elections?

Yes; they are the preferred mechanism for transfers of power in this country.

In a hospital waiting room a few months ago I found an issue of Time from 1999. What a revelation. In it was an article discussing the reasons why continued containment of Iraq was untenebale and unsustainable, and why Clinton and Dems were running a policy to try to bring about regime change. The article made it clear that leaving Saddam in power was extremely dangerous for the US and our allies. Meanwhile teh oil-for-food program was not working and Iraqi people were suffering. The non-military efforts at regime change undertaken by Clinton did not work.
I found all this most enlightening. Seems long forgotten now that WMD is all anyone talks about.

Ava, I am always amazed when republicans quote a man who they tried to impeach and detested for the "it's the lying" and "what will we tell the children" as an example of how they were somehow right in invading Iraq...Heh.

Last I checked, Clinton didn't invade Iraq based on erroneous claims even if he believed them. Last I checked, Rethugs cried "Wag the Dog" when Clinton ordered targetted Missile strikes against Iraq (not a full fledged quagmire) that was called Operation Desert Fox.... last I checked. Junior promised us we would be out of Iraq proabably within 6 months from the invasion and proclaimed Mission Accomplished almost 2 years ago but, last I checked, Junior would not give a time frame for when our 150,000 troops would be coming home from the quagmire...last I checked from last nights SOTU.

emal
I don't understand your reaction to my post. I learned something about the 1990s situation in Iraq in a five year old news magazine and I related what I had learned. That's all. Impeachemtn? Wag the dog? I am not critical of Clinton. On the contrary, I think he did everything he possibly could have given that the American people would have not accepted troops on the ground in Iraq at that time. The events of 911 changed the way many of us thought about the world, though.

Ava, In this post 9/11 world I am here to remind you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hussein was head of a Secular government and a papertiger...he feared and loathed the same religious fanatics responsible for 9/11. Most of the people involved with Al Qaeda and/or specifically 9/11 were Saudi's, Egyptians,Jordanians and Pakistani's....yet those nations remain staunch allies of ours. Now that our military is bogged down in Iraq, we couldn't do anything to those countries harboring and funding these people who are really responsible for terrorism if we wanted to, but I guess in your post 9/11 view that is okay.