"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Put a cap on losses. You lose money three years in a row, you're out of the scheme. And you don't get a bailout for what you lost.

We tattoo that rule on the back of the hands of those who opt in ("3 STRIKES, OUT, W/NO REMEDY"), so they can't say no one told them that's how things worked when they made their decision.

The means test would offend a lot of people for good reason.

If you are going to privatize Social Security or end it as an entitlement, you are going to need a backstop welfare plan for people who didn't work, or didn't work long enough, or never made enough, to invest in their own private accouint. That backstop will have to be means-tested.

The way to get around taxpayers being idiots with their money is limit the investment options for accounts funded by payroll withdrawal to either balanced or index funds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when someone is dragged to the electric chair, would you say the condemmed man "presided over" the execution?

You don't use analogies around the office, do you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understood Adder to be saying that it's twisted to argue that Clinton was not financially responsible because he failed to do what no other President has done for several decades.

OK. I'd agree that's twisted. I find it hard to say a President who ran a surplus was fiscally irresponsible, as just a general principle.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You don't use analogies around the office, do you?

Well, let's be grateful it wasn't more tortured. Hank's earlier versions of the analogy featured death, beastiality and (borrowing from Spanky's argument) Newt soaring down from the heavens brandishing a flaming sword.

[Hank Chinaski]

both Obama and hil say that Iraq diverted troops from where they need to be, Afghanistan. but when they talk about troops leaving Iraq they say "I'll bring the troops HOME."

shouldn't they be saying they will pull them out of Iraq and send them into Afghanistan? or is the "too few troops in Afghanistan" the lie they're telling?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
both Obama and hil say that Iraq diverted troops from where they need to be, Afghanistan. but when they talk about troops leaving Iraq they say "I'll bring the troops HOME."

shouldn't they be saying they will pull them out of Iraq and send them into Afghanistan? or is the "too few troops in Afghanistan" the lie they're telling?

Oh my god! You have uncovered the swift boating scandal of 2008!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
both Obama and hil say that Iraq diverted troops from where they need to be, Afghanistan. but when they talk about troops leaving Iraq they say "I'll bring the troops HOME."

shouldn't they be saying they will pull them out of Iraq and send them into Afghanistan? or is the "too few troops in Afghanistan" the lie they're telling?

I don't think either is a lie.

I haven't bothered to compare their Iraq and Afghanistan position papers, but no one is saying you need 150,000 more US troops in Afghanistan. I suspect that under either Clinton or Obama, the plan would be to bring the US troops in Iraq home, and increase US troop strength in Afghanistan while ineffectually jawboning our allies to do more in Afghanistan themselves.

Heck -- you don't want to ship the units right from Iraq to Afghanistan anyway -- need time back home to decompress, train, reequip and resupply.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think either is a lie.

I haven't bothered to compare their Iraq and Afghanistan position papers, but no one is saying you need 150,000 more US troops in Afghanistan. I suspect that under either Clinton or Obama, the plan would be to bring the US troops in Iraq home, and increase US troop strength in Afghanistan while ineffectually jawboning our allies to do more in Afghanistan themselves.

Heck -- you don't want to ship the units right from Iraq to Afghanistan anyway -- need time back home to decompress, train, reequip and resupply.

S_A_M

well if by "bring home" you mean that some of the actual people are brought home, but others are shipped there, hell bush has done that. they mean bring down the troop levels overseas, and I can't see how that isn't a lie.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
both Obama and hil say that Iraq diverted troops from where they need to be, Afghanistan. but when they talk about troops leaving Iraq they say "I'll bring the troops HOME."

shouldn't they be saying they will pull them out of Iraq and send them into Afghanistan? or is the "too few troops in Afghanistan" the lie they're telling?

You don't plan many military campaigns around the office, do you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well if by "bring home" you mean that some of the actual people are brought home, but others are shipped there, hell bush has done that. they mean bring down the troop levels overseas, and I can't see how that isn't a lie.

Everything's a lie if you've got a really good dictionary.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Everything's a lie if you've got a really good dictionary.

or nothing is, if Ty's on your side.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or nothing is, if Ty's on your side.

He's a litigator. We use thesauruses instead.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or nothing is, if Ty's on your side.

Unless it is, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Unless it is, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

huh?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or nothing is, if Ty's on your side.

Mine is a benevolent omnipotence.