A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Coming up with the things you each did shows that you each think that way. Everyone has some biases G, you shouldn't claim perfection. My point is simply that you as a group all seem to have biases in a direction against blacks.

Good point, Hank. I'll never again suggest that Republicans like black people.

S_A_M

P.S. It is the kid's expression which makes the picture mildly amusing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. you are perfect. you are a good-thinking liberal man. You are not racist. You went through the above before posting.

Yes. you are perfect. you are a good-thinking liberal man. You are not racist. You went through the above before posting.

Yes. you are perfect. you are a good-thinking liberal man. You are not racist. You went through the above before posting.

Yes. you are perfect. you are a good-thinking liberal man. You are not racist. You went through the above before posting.

You posted something stupid. You can't think of any defense.

You posted something stupid. You can't think of any defense.

You posted something stupid. You can't think of any defense.

You posted something stupid. So you posted something stupid again. Why not?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Well, he who gets off his ass to speak first tends to get to set the initial terms of the debate.

Please. He who controls the White House and Congress gets to set the agenda.

Honestly, though, I don't see why Bush positing PSRs has rendered the Dems incapable of suggesting anything else, discussing the cons thereof in terms other than "Scare tactic!" or otherwise sucking it up and acknowledging that of the various variables (amount of benefit, universiality of benefit, age of retirement, amount &/or source of contributions) something has to give (and hopefully acknowledging that, of those, the amount &/or source of contributions is probably the least flexible for all the demographic reasons giving us the problem in the first place).

If the Democrats held the White House and Congress, I would hope that they would try to do something about Medicare and the budget deficits, which are more pressing problems than SS.

This White House has absolutely zero interest in reaching a bipartisan compromise to save and better fund Social Security. What you say is a little bit like saying that Charlie Brown ought to take another run at the football, because Lucy might let him kick it this time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please. He who controls the White House and Congress gets to set the agenda.

Last time I checked Arts. I & II, there is no such person.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please. He who controls the White House and Congress gets to set the agenda.

the citizens of the United States?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please. He who controls the White House and Congress gets to set the agenda.

Yeah, but he doesn't necessarily get to set the terms of the public debate, or guide public opinion of the direction thereof.

If the Democrats held the White House and Congress, I would hope that they would try to do something about Medicare and the budget deficits, which are more pressing problems than SS.

That would be nice, but past performance makes me wonder how fast ol' Ted would insist there is no Medicare crisis at all, bush is LYING, if Bush were to propose structural reform there, too. (I only wish that were likely, 'cause there's only one possible reform there, which is to hugely diminish benefits. And/or force all oldsters into strictly managed care, which would probably work not at all in practice but at least has some arguments for it in theory. Come to think of it, nevermind, I'm sure both parties can find ways to fuck it up further and generally avoid the truth.)

This White House has absolutely zero interest in reaching a bipartisan compromise to save and better fund Social Security. What you say is a little bit like saying that Charlie Brown ought to take another run at the football, because Lucy might let him kick it this time.

Well, I certainly don't think he should sit on the sidelines and proclaim that he won't kick because there is no game going on, and even if there was Scroeder's lously rushing technique has lost more points than his field goal would be worth anyhow so there is no need to try.

BR(I deny any responsibility for this choice of analogy)C

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the citizens of the United States?

Good lord, give me the strength to ignore this troll.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Democrats held the White House and Congress, I would hope that they would try to do something about Medicare and the budget deficits, which are more pressing problems than SS.

This White House has absolutely zero interest in reaching a bipartisan compromise to save and better fund Social Security. What you say is a little bit like saying that Charlie Brown ought to take another run at the football, because Lucy might let him kick it this time.

This is the common refrain these days - If Bush is going to do X, he should do it here first. We saw it with Iraq ("Are we going to invade every country with human rights violations") and we are now seeing it with SS.

I agree with most of BRC's posts (surprise surprise) - the DEMs won't come up with a plan to save SS because they absolutely do not want Bush/GOP to get credit for "fixing" it. So instead they equate fixing SS with PRAs, meaning that if you are against PRAs you must be against SS reform. It's a smart PR campaign.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ironweed
Good lord, give me the strength to ignore this troll.

Yes, please continue to contribute substantive comments which have been enthralling me so for the past few weeks!

Are you friends with... ahh, forget it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the common refrain these days - If Bush is going to do X, he should do it here first. We saw it with Iraq ("Are we going to invade every country with human rights violations") and we are now seeing it with SS.

I agree with most of BRC's posts (surprise surprise) - the DEMs won't come up with a plan to save SS because they absolutely do not want Bush/GOP to get credit for "fixing" it. So instead they equate fixing SS with PRAs, meaning that if you are against PRAs you must be against SS reform. It's a smart PR campaign.

We've discussed this before, you and I. Not every criticism is couched in a bullheaded refusal to award credit -- some of them, just possibly, could be because the proferred solution has little to do with fixing the problem that he's articulated in the previous breath.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the common refrain these days - If Bush is going to do X, he should do it here first. We saw it with Iraq ("Are we going to invade every country with human rights violations") and we are now seeing it with SS.

I agree with most of BRC's posts (surprise surprise) - the DEMs won't come up with a plan to save SS because they absolutely do not want Bush/GOP to get credit for "fixing" it. So instead they equate fixing SS with PRAs, meaning that if you are against PRAs you must be against SS reform. It's a smart PR campaign.

Quick! Someone identify changes Bush is going to make other than Private Savings Accounts!

Bush has framed the discussion in PSAs because he doesn't want to talk about cutting benefits. Indeed, the one thing he has said on benefit cuts is that he won't cut them on anyone over 55. That means he is against means testing, by the way.

A number of Dems have been saying for years either than there should be a separate revenue base, not just the SS tax, or that the cap should be lifted and the rate lowered. These have been voices in the wilderness, but they've been there. I've posted in the past that a tax on employment was a fundamental problem, since it puts us at a competitive disadvantage overseas.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yes, please continue to contribute substantive comments which have been enthralling me so for the past few weeks!

Are you friends with... ahh, forget it.

You blew it Hello. Everyone has ignored him for weeks here and on FB. He gave up on FB- I think- I have him on ignore. his post was just a copy of one I did to him last week, so he was just trying, desparately now, to get some response. I think he would have left if you hadn't responded.

6 more weeks of winter now.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


A number of Dems have been saying for years either than there should be a separate revenue base, not just the SS tax,

You mean explicitly, right? Because the fact that it's on-budget and accruing IOUs from the general fund means that the income tax is the separate revenue base, at least starting around 2018 or so.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
We've discussed this before, you and I. Not every criticism is couched in a bullheaded refusal to award credit -- some of them, just possibly, could be because the proferred solution has little to do with fixing the problem that he's articulated in the previous breath.

I'm not talking about the critisism, I'm talking about that strategy. The DEMs do not want Bush to pass SS reform, even if it excluded PRAs. The only thing coming out of them is PRA = Evil. What I haven't heard is the following: "We, the DEMs, strongly disagree with PRAs for reasons X, Y, and Z, but we look forward to working with the President on a bipartisan solution."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You mean explicitly, right? Because the fact that it's on-budget and accruing IOUs from the general fund means that the income tax is the separate revenue base, at least starting around 2018 or so.

I mean explicitly, so that social security is not paid for solely from the wage base.