A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
with so many of you out of office, I guess you've the time.....

Sometimes I'm out of the office for a deposition, IYKWIM.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sometimes I'm out of the office for a deposition, IYKWIM.

Do you mean "deposition" in the FB sense like when President Clinton soiled a young women's dress, or in the FRCP sense like where he lied about it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
February 2nd, 2005


"In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt formed the Committee on Economic Security to design what was in effect the first federal safety net, the committee hired three actuaries to stargaze into the future. The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

Roger Lowenstein
New York Times Magazine
January 16th, 2005

[courtesy of TPM]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
February 2nd, 2005


"In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt formed the Committee on Economic Security to design what was in effect the first federal safety net, the committee hired three actuaries to stargaze into the future. The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

Roger Lowenstein
New York Times Magazine
January 16th, 2005

[courtesy of TPM]

You're bothered by "Could not have forseen"?

In 1934 did they predict, accurately, HOW LONG they'd live?

I know it was late and it was really important for you to find another lie, but that's sort of stretching, isn't it?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
February 2nd, 2005


"In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt formed the Committee on Economic Security to design what was in effect the first federal safety net, the committee hired three actuaries to stargaze into the future. The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

Roger Lowenstein
New York Times Magazine
January 16th, 2005

[courtesy of TPM]

Since when was SS founded by actuaries?

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the speech. The agenda for the next 4 years is very bold and I think he at least communicated that he is willing to consider ideas from all sources in order to attempt to deal with some difficult issues.

I will say though that he, like nearly every other President, really pisses me off by saying early in the speech "We are going to hold increases in non-discretionary spending to below inflation" and then proceeding to speak for the next hour on all the new spending initiatives.

[Gattigap]

No doubt, it's tough being a WH press secretary. Begin forced to spin your Administration's policies in the face of unpleasant facts is difficult for anyone, and only the truly gifted aliens -- the Ari's of the world -- can do it consistently.

Poor mortals like Scott McClellan have almost no hope at all. His answers often stumble, drift, wander, perambulate, pause to relieve themselves, and trip over their own inconsistencies.

Fortunately, McClellan has new allies in the Briefing Room. The surprise is that the ally is a credentialed member of the press corps. Move over, FNC, there's a new sycophant in town!

• The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.
  
  Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."
  
  Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality." During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No doubt, it's tough being a WH press secretary. Begin forced to spin your Administration's policies in the face of unpleasant facts is difficult for anyone, and only the truly gifted aliens -- the Ari's of the world -- can do it consistently.

Poor mortals like Scott McClellan have almost no hope at all. His answers often stumble, drift, wander, perambulate, pause to relieve themselves, and trip over their own inconsistencies.

Fortunately, McClellan has new allies in the Briefing Room. The surprise is that the ally is a credentialed member of the press corps. Move over, FNC, there's a new sycophant in town!

• The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.
  
  Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."
  
  Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality." During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.

I'm trying to decide if this is better or worse than the propaganda via pundit method.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm trying to decide if this is better or worse than the propaganda via pundit method.

Certainly McClellan appreciates it more. In between fastballs, he can arrange for this guy to come set up a tee in front of the plate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're bothered by "Could not have forseen"?

If a NYT reporter can figure out that they actually did foresee this, and made accurate predictions, I would hope that the President would have someone working for him who would get this right. But I'm not particularly bothered by it. It's par for the course at this point.

Originally posted by club
Since when was SS founded by actuaries?

I'm sure the President was thinking hard about the distinction between those who founded Social Security and the actuaries they hired.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If a NYT reporter can figure out that they actually did foresee this, and made accurate predictions, I would hope that the President would have someone working for him who would get this right. But I'm not particularly bothered by it. It's par for the course at this point.

Do you not understand that w/o the slope being predicted they didn't forsee it? Let me help, I'm a scientist and I say it's so.

[Hank Chinaski]

I am in the middle of this- My god is all I can say. I'm it is a slapdown that is probably as unfair as Mike at times, but that boy took some liberties. they interview the teacher at the school and the Oregon State Trooper, and they both sort of disagree with the Mike. Not to mention showing all the numbers and parnoia were horseshit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I am in the middle of this- My god is all I can say. I'm it is a slapdown that is probably as unfair as Mike at times, but that boy took some liberties. they interview the teacher at the school and the Oregon State Trooper, and they both sort of disagree with the Mike. Not to mention showing all the numbers and parnoia were horseshit.

I've seen neither Moore's movie, nor this thing you're referring to. so I really have no idea about it. Quick question -- since you're reading this refutation, did you happen to have seen the movie to which it refers?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I've seen neither Moore's movie, nor this thing you're referring to. so I really have no idea about it. Quick question -- since you're reading this refutation, did you happen to have seen the movie to which it refers?

Watching, not reading- and I've seen Mike's little movie.
That is how come i keep posting these cryptic "pipeline" comments.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Watching, not reading- and I've seen Mike's little movie.
That is how come i keep posting these cryptic "pipeline" comments.

Ah, OK. Carry on.

[sgtclub]

MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 1998:

• An effort "to craft a bipartisan bill to assure Social Security's solvency," says the Los Angeles Times.'
  
  "A bold move to put the future of the massive retirement program at the top of his agenda," says The Washington Post.
  
  "They still must resolve an emotional ideological debate over whether the government should continue to take money from the working-age generation and transfer it to retirees . . . or whether Social Security should be transformed so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements," says the New York Times.

MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 2005:

• "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board." Says the L.A. Times.
  
  But the president declined to take ownership of any of these politically risky changes, offering them instead as the ideas offered in the past by other politicians, all Democrats as it turned out, says The Washinton Post.
  
  His avoidance of specifics appeared deliberate. The Bush team well knows how critics of the Clinton administration's heavily detailed health care proposal - submitted to Congress as a pre-baked package - picked it apart and defeated it a decade ago, says The New York Times.