A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
President Bush clears the way for default:

• Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem.

TPM

When he was trying to get elected for the first time, Bush was all about respecting the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund:

• "First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it. Now, I believe there's enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure-- $2 trillion. I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they're supposed to be spent on, and that's Social Security."
  
  "Governor Bush supports lockboxing $ 2.4 trillion to save and strengthen Social Security."

TPM archives

Now he's pretending it doesn't exist. But Kerry was the flip-flopper.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When he was trying to get elected for the first time, Bush was all about respecting the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund:

• "First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it. Now, I believe there's enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure-- $2 trillion. I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they're supposed to be spent on, and that's Social Security."
  
  "Governor Bush supports lockboxing $ 2.4 trillion to save and strengthen Social Security."

TPM archives

Now he's pretending it doesn't exist. But Kerry was the flip-flopper.

You are personally killing this board.

RT, next year when people who owe me pay you, none of it is earmarked for Politics. If Politics is shut down, so be it. I cannot support this type posting.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You are personally killing this board.

RT, next year when people who owe me pay you, none of it is earmarked for Politics. If Politics is shut down, so be it. I cannot support this type posting.

Let's add this to our conservative list: Do you ignore your own prior statements and commitments?

Ah, but I forget, Hank went for the equality thing, so he's really a liberal. I'm the conservative, church going one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Let's add this to our conservative list: Do you ignore your own prior statements and commitments?

Ah, but I forget, Hank went for the equality thing, so he's really a liberal. I'm the conservative, church going one.

this is weird. my ignore list doesn't work on a MAC!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is a very interesting account, and I post it for club, who has wondered why foreign aid is so often ineffectual. No good answers, but a good story about Sierra Leone.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, does Bush take any responsibility for North Korea getting the bomb on his watch, or is it all Clinton's fault?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, does Bush take any responsibility for North Korea getting the bomb on his watch, or is it all Clinton's fault?

w/o touching your question- how is this news different than what we knew a year ago? i mean we knew they had a bomb then right?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, does Bush take any responsibility for North Korea getting the bomb on his watch, or is it all Clinton's fault?

He sure hasn't taken responsibilty for 9/11. But that was Clinton's fault too, right?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa

(Spree: The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, does Bush take any responsibility for North Korea getting the bomb on his watch, or is it all Clinton's fault?

uh, "claim" you mean, right? Unless they developed the bomb in just the last four years, which is pretty rapid, I don't think Clinton escapes, given he fed them pizza for 8 years while they stayed up late designing missiles and a bomb.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
He sure hasn't taken responsibilty for 9/11. But that was Clinton's fault too, right?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa

(Spree: The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks)

How is this different? We knew this too correct?

And Coltrane- answer this- what should have been done in response to the warnings? Factor the following into your answer- The warnings had been going on for years and the Dems controlled Congress. Also, assume that AFTER 9/11 it took almost a year to get an aviation security package throught the Democratically controlled Senate.

And as to who was "at fault" for 9/11- there was a referendum on that last November. People decided, maybe better not to have a Dem president for a little while longer.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, does Bush take any responsibility for North Korea getting the bomb on his watch, or is it all Clinton's fault?

You have got to be kidding me.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How is this different? We knew this too correct?

And Coltrane- answer this- what should have been done in response to the warnings? Factor the following into your answer- The warnings had been going on for years and the Dems controlled Congress. Also, assume that AFTER 9/11 it took almost a year to get an aviation security package throught the Democratically controlled Senate.

I'm just stirring the soup. I don't think 9/11 could have been prevented by Clinton or Bush. And I don't blame either one for 9/11. I have consistently said this. It was going to happen no matter who was president.

Also, I have never given Clinton credit for the economic boom of the '90s, and I refuse to give Bush credit for the current alleged economic recovery. People who do the former or the latter need to take Macro Econ 101 again.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
He sure hasn't taken responsibilty for 9/11. But that was Clinton's fault too, right?

If you scroll down in the article, I think it says exactly that:

• A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

The problem the FAA had is that it had no good means to communicate or act on the information it had. Are you expecting Bush to have had that inplace in the first 3 months after taking office?

[sgtclub]

So it likes like the Adminstration has given the EU a lot of leeway in negotiations with Iran. Will they be successful, or is the WH letting them hang?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

And as to who was "at fault" for 9/11- there was a referendum on that last November. People decided, maybe better not to have a Dem president for a little while longer.

I agree that 9/11 was the deciding factor in the election. Or better stated, irrational fear caused by color-coded terrorism levels etc. was the deciding factor in the election. Scare middle America shitless so they vote for you. Bravo.

Where did those levels go?

To miquote King Edward Longshanks in Braveheart:

"The trouble with middle America is that it's full of middle Americans."