Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spot on Hank, spot. on. Thinking about films reminds of films that I have seen which reminds me of Weird Science, because it is a film that I have seen. Think about the plot, two guys, Wyatt and Gary, learning about science and satisfying their adolescent psychosexual angst. In order to fulfill their hormone driven curiousity about the sex they utilize their computer, some other various and sundry accessories, like Barbie doll heads and the fashion concept of the bra on the head to create a major sexbabe, who shows them the ropes, iamos, iykwim.

Speaking of which, is a bra on the head torture or does the more grungy nature of panties tip that balance?

I see the point you're trying to make. I remember in college a good friend of mine had a crush on my roommate's sister. Once she left her dirty laundry for the roommate to take home to get washed. my buddy pulled a pair of panties out of the bag and pulled them over his head to sniff. funny thing was if the pantie owner knew she'd be mad but the guy wearing them was way into it. like my dorm room was anti- abu gahrib. But its like Buk said, its always the guy who wouldn't like a pot of turds who walks in on one. Or as the folksier Atticus might say "Yeah, but those weren't Prv. England's panties your friend was savoring."

Conf. to Penske:
You inspired me to work hard and get a log-in, so now that you're back I feel i should give you some warnings. Its changed here, really really changed. step carefully.

there's a newber called Shape Shifter who's only contact with animate mademoielles is from the women (or those who are pretending to be- no diff- its all 0 and 1's on the inside) on this board. So you should be careful about saying shit about computer sex being wierd. Also, there is a real danger saying anything about what people wear on their heads. WTTW.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why does it have to be an either/or, why can't they be all three?

Storytime kiddies! A democratic junkie carjacks a car to get to the ghetto and purchase crack. The junkie gets there, buys crack and gets high. Walking back to his car, the junkie is approached by a ghettizen. The junkie gets mugged, but the inner city resident assumes the junkie already spent all his money on crack. The ghetto-dude gets only the car keys and takes off in the car.

The police are called. They recognize the democratic junkie for the criminal he is, and tax him.

Yeah, I see your point. Republicans here might be democrats who get high, get mugged and pay taxes.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Republicans are people who have taken illegal mind-altering substances.

The libertarian wing of the Rep party.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Political unification theory? Where is Temp Sock when I need someone to counter this theory with evidence that criminals are overwhelmingly democrats?

Violent criminals are overwhelmingly Dems. Drug users aren't violent criminals. White collar criminals are overwhelmingly Reps.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're down to suggesting that the facts we're reading in the mainstream media are made up.

Pre-war, the mainstream media said there were WMDs in Iraq.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Also, there is a real danger saying anything about what people wear on their heads. WTTW.

"Towelhead" is patently offensive. I thought we agreed to call them "slamis"?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski its all 0 and 1's on the inside

I see you've come around on Massachusetts.

[spookyfish]

The Supreme Court determines that "Under God" can stay in the Pledge of Allegiance -- for now.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...of_allegiance/

They decided the case on the basis of the father not having standing to bring the case, since his daughter does not live with him.

Now to be honest, I'm pretty neutral on this subject. I don't particularly think that the presence of the words "under God" cause particular harm, as it does not promote a particular religious belief, but aren't they just postponing the inevitable?

On the other hand, the sign in front of the public school my daughter attends has one of those signs that has the removable letters that allow you to post messages about current events. For some reason, someone saw fit to place the message, Have a Blessed Summer on the sign. For some reason I cannot quite put my finger on, I find this far more offensive to my sensibilities than the use of the words "under God" in the pledge. Perhaps it's because I'm reminded of it every time I drive past the school building.

Question:
Is one "worse" than the other in your opinion, are they equally bad, or is neither worth getting upset about. Thoughts?

See below, from the NYT.

Everyone is missing the point here. The point is not that the administration consistently misrepresents the state of the SS trust fund. The point is getting the SS funds that are currently locked up in those boring old long-term bonds into the hands of traders, so they can start charging zee fat management fees and getting busy wit da after hours trading. Win win win, no???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 15, 2004
Social Security Better Off Than Forecast, Study Says
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, June 14 - The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that it foresaw a significant, growing deficit in the Social Security program, but concluded that the long-term outlook was less dire than the administration had projected.

The results of the study by the nonpartisan budget office are significant because President Bush has strongly suggested that given Social Security's problems, he will make a major effort to overhaul the system if he is re-elected.

In that overhaul, workers would be allowed to set aside some of their payroll taxes in individual savings accounts, to be invested in stocks and bonds. Under current law, Social Security payroll taxes not needed for today's benefits are invested by the Social Security trust fund in government securities, mainly long-term bonds sold only to the fund.

In its first comprehensive analysis of Social Security's finances, the budget office said the program was currently running a surplus. But it also said that as baby boomers retire, "outlays will continually grow faster than revenues, resulting in significant annual deficits."

"Outlays are projected to begin exceeding revenues in 2019, with the gap growing ever wider thereafter," the budget office said.

In its latest report, in March, the Bush administration said the Social Security trust fund would be exhausted in 2042. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office said it would not be depleted until 2052.

The Bush administration estimated the program's long-range deficit - the difference between revenue and outlays over the next 75 years - at 1.9 percent of the nation's taxable payroll in that period. By contrast, the budget office put the long-range deficit at 1 percent of taxable payroll.

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, seized on different parts of the report as evidence to support their views.

Representative Robert T. Matsui of California, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, said the report showed that the program was facing a financial challenge but not a crisis. Moreover, he said in a letter to Mr. Bush, the challenge is manageable, and "radical reforms are unnecessary." Democrats describe privatizing any part of Social Security as a radical reform.

By contrast, Thomas R. Saving, a public trustee of Social Security who described himself as a libertarian Republican, said the report was confirmation that the program in its current form was unsustainable.

And the chairman of the House subcommittee, Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr., Republican of Florida, said the report showed that "Social Security's Depression-era pay-as-you-go financing cannot sustain the program for future generations."

The administration's estimates were prepared largely by government actuaries, civil servants whose work is respected on Capitol Hill. But Democrats said they needed an independent perspective because of their experience with Medicare legislation last year. In that episode, an administration official instructed the chief Medicare actuary to withhold cost estimates sought by Democrats in Congress; support for the bill, which in the end passed narrowly, might have eroded if those estimates, larger than the administration's projections, had been widely known.

For the new report, the Congressional Budget Office developed its own Social Security model, which assumed that earnings and productivity would grow faster than the administration assumed and that inflation would be somewhat lower and interest rates somewhat higher. (Dr. Saving said the higher interest rates meant that as long as Social Security enjoyed a budget surplus, it would earn more from investing trust fund money in government securities.)

In 2003, the budget office said, Social Security spending equaled 4.4 percent of gross domestic product, somewhat less than the tax revenue dedicated to the program. Revenue, it said, will remain around 5 percent of gross domestic product for the next 100 years, but outlays will rise sharply, to 6.1 percent of G.D.P. in 2030 and 6.8 percent in 2100.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

[sgtclub]

from Drudge:

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I see the point you're trying to make. I remember in college a good friend of mine had a crush on my roommate's sister. Once she left her dirty laundry for the roommate to take home to get washed. my buddy pulled a pair of panties out of the bag and pulled them over his head to sniff. funny thing was if the pantie owner knew she'd be mad but the guy wearing them was way into it. .

Any chance you still have those panties?

eta: uh, I meant your "your friend"

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Conf. to Penske:
You inspired me to work hard and get a log-in, so now that you're back I feel i should give you some warnings. Its changed here, really really changed. step carefully.

there's a newber called Shape Shifter who's only contact with animate mademoielles is from the women (or those who are pretending to be- no diff- its all 0 and 1's on the inside) on this board. So you should be careful about saying shit about computer sex being wierd. Also, there is a real danger saying anything about what people wear on their heads. WTTW.

confidential to Hank-please see below in kryptosam-hint, use decoder:

Nuff said. Of course, tread lightly my friend, invoking secret legacies of some "socks" is a dangerous path. Some stories should not be told, some names should not be revealed. Do not draw false confidence from the illusion of anonymity that the internet falsely draws for us.

Take guidance from what SockfortheMan once told Plated:

"Socks in their inexperience are inclined at first to take everything
carelessly and playfully. And though in the time of their youth folly is not an evil, sometimes an incorrigible fool must be punished."

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
from Drudge:

What that discrepancy reveals to me is how little emotion Kerry generates in the Dem base.

Otherwise, you'd have to think he'd be leading by at least 13 points.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What that discrepancy reveals to me is how little emotion Kerry generates in the Dem base.

Otherwise, you'd have to think he'd be leading by at least 13 points.

*sigh* Depression is the emotion Kerry generates for me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
from Drudge:

I suspect that you would rather bitch about whether the media is "objective" than learn more about how the LA Times does it's polling, but if I'm wrong, you can read Mickey Kaus's blog on Slate (he's neither a liberal nor a fan of the LA Times), in which he recently discussed an interview with the woman who runs the LA Times' polling. Go here and scroll down to the entry for June 10 (irritatingly, he doesn't give links to specific entries). Kaus:

I've been told, however, that Times polling director Susan Pinkus is a straight shooter, so I did the irresponsible thing and postponed sniping while I called her up. [Don't let this happen again--ed] Here's what I learned:

• --The party breakdown in the LAT poll was 38 % Democratic, 25% Republican, 24% Independent. That's about the same as the 38/19/26 breakdown of a year ago, but it's a big increase in Democrats since March of this year, when they were only 33 percent of the sample. Pinkus argues her latest numbers are not that different from a recent ABC poll that she said showed Democrats with a 37/27 percent edge. And she says her overall horse-race result isn't much different from the latest Gallup poll, which had Kerry up 6 in a three-way race. (That was among "likely" voters. The Times surveyed "registered" voters--and Gallup only had Kerry up by 3 in that broader group.)
  
  --On the gigantic Democratic generic Congressional-preference lead in her survey, Pinkus said, "I don't know what's happening with that. If that's true, it's huge. ... I've seen it 5 or 6 points, but never 19, it's true." She said she stood by her poll, however. (Earlier she had noted that one out of 20 polls will be wrong, given the accepted margins of error.)

I think the last sentence is interesting. Not something you usually hear.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suspect that you would rather bitch about whether the media is "objective" than learn more about how the LA Times does it's polling, but if I'm wrong, you can read Mickey Kaus's blog on Slate (he's neither a liberal nor a fan of the LA Times), in which he recently discussed an interview with the woman who runs the LA Times' polling. Go here and scroll down to the entry for June 10 (irritatingly, he doesn't give links to specific entries). Kaus:



I think the last sentence is interesting. Not something you usually hear.

That is amazing. The DEMS have a 14% lead, yet the GOP controls congress.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I think the last sentence is interesting. Not something you usually hear.

No, because the unstated assumption (apparently) is that the margin of error usually cited represents the 95% confidence interval.

I would also hazard a guess that her figure is wrong. Probably 99% of polls are wrong, in that they don't predict exact percentages (even without decimals). What's more, for those 5% of cases in which the poll is "wrong", that is, actual percentages (based on a vote) fall outside the margin of error cited, it doesn't matter. If Kerry leads by 8% and the margin of error is +/-3%, and he wins by 2%, then the poll is "wrong" statisitically, but practically is irrelevant, as he still won.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suspect that you would rather bitch about whether the media is "objective" than learn more about how the LA Times does it's polling, but if I'm wrong, you can read Mickey Kaus's blog on Slate (he's neither a liberal nor a fan of the LA Times), in which he recently discussed an interview with the woman who runs the LA Times' polling. Go here and scroll down to the entry for June 10 (irritatingly, he doesn't give links to specific entries). Kaus:



I think the last sentence is interesting. Not something you usually hear.

most polls Nov. 2000 had Bush an easy winner in Fla. and slightly ahead in Penn/Mi.