Daily Kos

Flowers, and stuff

by kos

Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:15:42 AM PDT

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 48 comments

  •  Tanks for the Memories (none / 0)

    n/t

    by Prester John on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:17:28 AM PDT

    •  Deficit (none / 0)

      newyorkmetro.com :

      To any Republican with a sense of history (let alone irony), the possibility that Social Security '05 could be a replay of health care '94 (with the partisan polarities reversed) looks all too real, and scary as hell. To Democrats, however, it is, and should be, an opportunity to get up off the mat. What Kristol, probably driven by some dark, Machiavellian motive (he recently emerged in the Washington Post as a critic of Bush's Social Security plans), was saying to Democrats was, Forget that you control no branch of government; this thing is winnable anyway.

      by dotpeople on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:20:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and so we'll continue to continue... (none / 1)

        Export democracy: Draft a Republican.

        by turbonium on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:41:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but where the hell are OUR . . . (4.00 / 3)

        . . . Harry and Louise? I'm the first to say, don't wait for "the Democrats" to do something - WE are the Democrats, and if something needs doing, we should just get off our asses and do it.

        But the insurance lobby spent $17 million on the devastatingly effective Harry and Louise ads. I don't have $17 million. Even groups like MoveOn don't have that kind of money.

        It's very discouragin'.

        More from the Center for Media & Democracy about Harry and Louise.

        I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. - Barbara Jordan

        by Janet Strange on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:57:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In fact... (none / 0)

          ...Have been wondering about whether the Democrats have given much consideration to the power of a $100 million advertising campaign promised by the Republicans to promote their
          "non-privatization" privatization plan (a la Harry & Louise).

          We should all remember the great momentum there was for the Clinton's health care proposal back in 1994, until the Republicans began tossing $300-400 million worth of advertising, which successfully killed it off by turning public opinion.

          But, am concerned that, like Charlie Brown and Lucy with her football, the progressive community and Democrats will "fail to see that coming" yet again.

          What's our plan to counter-attack the inevitable manipulation of public opinion which the Republicans have become so adept at on this matter? (Move-on, we may need you!)

          by wdrath on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:42:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need a Progessive Heritage Foundation (none / 0)

            According to David Brock in 'The Republican Noise Macine', the top 20 conservative think tanks are funded by $1 billion per year. Just think, there are around 500 mini Heritages nationwide formulating policy to retain power. Brookings and American Enterprise Intitute and Urban Institute are pretty non-partisan, just looking to widen the discussion rather than coming up with dirty tricks to bamboozle Red State minions. And those guys are considered to be the Liberal think tanks.

            Clinton said it well this week. He said he was no longer upset with the Righties (we should heretofore call them Regressives) when they don't play fair. He was angry with the Democrats who just sit there and take it without fighting back.

            And, as an aside, why does the Repulican administration need to dip into tax dollars to pay journalists and pundits where the money trail is available via the Freedom of Information Act when Heritage could just as easily toss them the spare change from the couch cusions? Nobody would ever know.

            The plural of anecdote is not data.

            by bobinson on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:16:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I get two messages from this (none / 0)

    one of them being you don't sleep.

    strong infrastructure and fair play

    by pyrrho on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:23:18 AM PDT

  •  Coming soon.... n/t (none / 0)

    by Tom Kertes on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:44:44 AM PDT

  •  that's one of the best cartoons (none / 0)

    I've seen in a looong time.

    Only way it could've been better is if Michael Milken had been riding the tank too.

    It's called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. - G. Carlin

    by RabidNation on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:12:14 AM PDT

  •  FOX admits distorting (4.00 / 6)

    the news. FOX, "We distort, you decide."
    Two TV journalists have challenged the broadcast license renewal of WTVT Fox-13 asserting it deliberately broadcast false and distorted news reports.

    Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson filed the petition Monday against the Tampa station, a unit of Rupert Murdoch's Fox Television conglomerate.

    The 98-page petition to deny the station's pending license renewal presents the Federal Communications Commission with support for the claim that the licensee is not operating in the public interest and "lacks the good character to do so."

    snip

    The reporters charge in a release distributed Monday that station executives demanded the reports be falsified and slanted to avoid a threatened lawsuit by the hormone maker Monsanto, as well as potential loss of advertising from the dairy industry and others who objected to the reports.

    The two reporters were fired after, they say, they refused to yield to management threats of dismissal.

    Fox officials never pointed to a single inaccuracy in the proposed broadcasts, they say.

    snip

    In 1998, the two filed a civil court lawsuit seeking employee protections under the state Whistleblower Act that resulted in a $425,000 jury award to Akre.

    That verdict was overturned in 2003 when an appellate court accepted Fox's defense that since it is not technically against any law, rule or regulation for a broadcaster to distort the news, the journalists were never entitled to employee protections as whistleblowers in the first place.

    by Mike S on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:21:08 AM PDT

  •  Playing the Race Card (4.00 / 3)

    Paul Krugman

    This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating his earlier claim that "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people." In other words, blacks don't live long enough to collect their fair share of benefits.

    One of the problems with Bush's assertion (that SS is a bad deal of African-Americans) is that it is bogus, and he knows it.

    Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation - a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out "major errors in the methodology." That's actuary-speak for "damned lies."

    In fact, the actuary said, "careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security" as whites.

    I know this sounds counter intuitive, but listen:

    It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years - but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years - not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.

    Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

    Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits.

    The most damning thing about this is the cold bloodedly cynical manner in which Bush uses this piece of misinformation.

    Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word.

    --
    Gimme back my broken night
    my mirrored room, my secret life     --Leonard Cohen, The Future

    by Tenuous Leemployed on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:44:58 AM PDT

    •  ss is a tax to prevent senior poverty (none / 1)

      it is a program that has been the most successful at ending poverty - but doing so in a universal way without stigma, without "fixing" the poor

      Bush wants to bring back senior poverty - and I can only think he wants to do this because he is, well, perhaps EVIL --- I am sick of Bush.  Fed up and sick of him.

      by Tom Kertes on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:50:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush may be evil but (none / 0)

        primarily he is just a shill for big corporations, and he'll continue to be successful as long as the Ruthugs have 51% of the population bamboozled.  That's the part we Dems don't seem to get.  It's not about being smart or right.  It's about unabashably lying with a straight face and a half-assed plan.

        Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

        by groggy on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:50:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  disability privatization (none / 0)

      The point I keep hearing conservatives make in defense is that the disability part doesn't have anything to do with privatization, so if you ignore that part, then blacks are still getting screwed by social security.  what the hell do they mean by that?

      And doesn't it even occur to them that black life expectancy being lower is, like, a problem?  It's not like blacks are genetically inferior or anything.  (That's the part I'm itching to say to them, to see how they react:  "It's not like they are genetically inferior or anything, right?  Right?"  "Weeellll.....")

      So, you know.  Maybe that problem should be SOLVED, rather than used as a reason to cut their benefits.  "Well, your race is sick and you'll probably die early, so... let me cut your pension plan.  There ya go!"

      tunesmith's latest song: My Favorite Clown

      by tunesmith on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 03:13:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was an actuary ... and (4.00 / 5)

      My career began many years ago in actuarial sciences, and in maintaining and determining that corporate pension plans had adequate funding to meet their future anticipated liability.

      At no point did any mortality table account for anything other than the entire average population of workers.

      To state that African-American men have a shortened  average life-expectancy as a means to justify privatization of social security is outrageous, and similar to the inane stupidity that establishes the 'Healthy Forests' Initiative -that is, without trees forests will be much healthier.

      The criminal scum that continue to occupy the White House are obscuring the core issue, that being what as a society can we do to provide better access to medical care and technology, such that all people, regardless of race have equal opportunity for a long, healthly and quality life.

      the 100 Year March Diary
      Mobilize the Economic Revolt; about the Peacehat project
      Peacehat Portal Prototype (work in progress)

      George

      by 100yearmarch on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:25:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good collection of facts, thank you (none / 0)

      Bush's comments show how ignorant he really is about domestic affairs, especially anything relating to the poor.

      Most people even vaguely familiar with big-city crime know that the number one cause of death among young black males is homicide. That Bush would be so unaware of this to make that asinine statement about life span is just embarassing.

      He is an embarassment, period.

      "Soon the time will come to choose between what is easy, and what is right." - A. Dumbledore

      by epluribus on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:06:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The wingnuts say (none / 0)

    LET THEM EAT CAKE!!!
    PEACE!

    by PC on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 03:31:06 AM PDT

  •  The Washington Post (4.00 / 3)

    this morning has a story that Bush has entered a new phase in his relationship with Congress.  Apparently, they do not feel the obligations to him now that he has his second term that they felt before the election.  They are not sure that they want to throw themselves on America's third rail for the Sage of Crawford.

    Guess what. Kossacks continue to be very rude. I am for Obama, but I'm not a Kossack.

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:33:47 AM PDT

  •  Excellent!!! (none / 0)

    by davidrocks on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:37:04 AM PDT

  •  News on Social Security Crisis (4.00 / 3)

    In an unannounced speech today, president bush warned of a "growing" and "imminent" threat from Social Security.

    Using language not heard since the early days of the Iraq war run-up, mr. bush announced that "Social Security had best disarm or face serious consequences."

    Calling Social Security a "growing and gathering threat', as the president put it, which "put us on a collision course with this menace at some point in our future," the president announced that he would seek any and all ways of disarming Social Security, even if it meant once again going before the United Nations.

    "As the president, I have a, uh, I have uh, a duty to continue to do the hard work to protect the American people," The president said.  "I feel that if I do not protect them in any way I can from growing and gathering threats, then I'm not doing my job."

    "Citing his recent tax cuts, whose costs were added to the nation's National Debt starting in 2001 totalling over $3.2 trillion dollars, through 2010," the president called on the nation to spend $1.2 trillion using low estimates to upwards of $2.4 trillion dollars in order to "disarm" Social Security.

    "We have no idea where America will get this kind of money," several prominent Republican senators all said at a recent news conference on this urgent national crisis.

    Senator Bill Frist of Tenessee told the press conference he thought such a cost was high given our nation's current situation and would really require the support of the American people.  "$2.4 trillion dollars to attack Social Security?"  the Senator asked.  "Given the seriousness of this threat, the only way we could possibly do this would be to borrow that money...Otherwise, I don't see how the nation can attack this serious and grave threat to our nation," The Senator said.

    Armstrong Williams, a republican radio commentator popular and very loyal proponent of the administration today announced that "after looking at the numbers, I have to now agree with our President, that Social Security IS a threat to this nation and we must all do whatever it takes to defend America from it."

    Evangelist Pat Robertson, told his very popular 700 Club to consider this threat.  "My fellow congregation, this is as grave a threat to our nation as we have had since Saddam Hussein threatened our nation with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.  If we do not stand up now and support our President in this time of national crisis, then we, as Christians must bow our heads in shame." Robertson said.

    by jackemoe on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:41:10 AM PDT

  •  that's Nick Anderson... (none / 0)

    who is one of the few good things left in the once-proud Louisville Courier-Journal (AKA "Gannett McPaperTM")...

    -8.25, -6.26 "I'm not superstitious. But, I AM a little stitious." - Michael Scott

    by snookybeh on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:24:24 AM PDT

  •  The biggest insult (4.00 / 3)

    coming out of this SS propaganda effort by BushCo is that the trust fund isn't really a trust fund, just a bucket of IOUs.

    Listen, I and millions of Americans have been paying excess TAXES since 1983 to fund this Trust Fund.

    Is Allen Boyd et al saying that those extra TAXES were just one big fucking joke?

    "Hey, we spent it.  So sue me, fuckhead."  That seems to be their message.

    To borrow a phrase from Bush, it's your money.  Demand that your SS benefits be paid out in accordance with their contract with you, the taxpayer.

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:17:35 AM PDT

    •  A bigger insult (none / 0)

       is that they are simultaneously claiming to be setting themselves up as the "permanent majority". That is the future government that they suggest can simply walk away from the Trust Fund bonds is going to be a Republican one.

      "Fuck you, we borrowed the $1.5 trillion, we are going to continue borrowing hundreds of billions of payroll tax for the next decade, and we have no intention of paying it back. And we expect you to keep voting for us." Shorter Grover Norquist.

      What's that burning smell? That's the Republicans being pushed onto the Third Rail. Hello 2006 midterms.

      Pollkatz: Bush Approval

      by Bruce Webb on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:07:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  out with the old, in with the young, voters (none / 0)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/27/213519/064

    by plk on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:45:31 AM PDT

  •  Why is Bush taking on Social Security now? (none / 1)

    I am really bothered by Bush's effort to change Social Security. Not so much by the effort to destroy it (a given) but just by his effort to even tackle the issue at all.

    He can't win.

    It is already splitting the Republican Party and unifying the Democrats. The more people hear about the proposals, the less popular they clearly are. So why is he doing it?

    1. Has he really gotten the idea that he can take on any issue and turn it around to where he wins? So now he dares go after the very core of the Democrats?

    2. Does he really believe his own rhetoric? That Social Security is about to collapse of its' own weight?

    3. Is it perhaps an effort to open a new front on the war against government and the welfare state?

    4. Perhaps he believes that the personal responsibility state really is a better way to run society?

    5. Or is there some underhanded slight-of-hand in which he presents the Social Security initiatives to absorb the energies of the liberal media and the blogosphere while he does something really nasty in Iraq or elsewhere?

    6. Or is there something else?

    I guess their motivation depends partly on whether they are being rational and looking at reality, being rational but living in an unreal cacoon, or are simply irrational. I know all could apply at once, but one may be dominant over the others.

    Any ideas?

    Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

    by Rick B on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

    •  It may appear that he can't win, but (none / 0)

      ...lets not forget that the Republicans have vowed to raise and spend AT LEAST $100 million to sway public opinion on this. Lets also not forget the $300-400 milllion spent by Republicans to turn public opinion against the Clinton's health care proposal which, up until then, had enjoyed great support and momentum.

      The Republicans have a huge amount of resources at their disposal. In addition to the $300-400 million in paid advertising, they can also count on the vast support of all their "talking heads" to assist them in swaying public opinion on this.

      Just because it appears that we have the edge now in preventing the privatization of Social Security, lets not underestimate the power of our governing oligarchy.

      by wdrath on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:25:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But even if he wins, what does he win? (none / 0)

        I don't question the assets the Republicans apparently plan to bring to his fight, nor do I really underestimate their ability to ram changes things through.

        My real question goes to their goal. What do they expect to get that justifies this massive effort?

        The last four years shows that it is a given they do not really want what they say they want. Everything they do is a bait-and-switch that is intended to do something they could never get if they were honest about it.

        This is really suspicious. The assets you describe are really significant, and the battle they intend to fight appears to be a loser on the face of it. The way Democrats are lining up to oppose their proposals and the way the Republicans in Congress are wavering makes their liklihood of losing appear even greater than it did initially. They are crazy and quite nasty, but they aren't stupid.

        What do they REALLY want?

        Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

        by Rick B on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:43:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Now is his best chance (none / 0)

      He stated this explicitly last year, about how he needed to get this done in his first two years, before being perceived as a lame duck.

      Some of your questions are predicated on the false assumption that Bush cares about society or what's best for it, but talk about SS collapse or personal responsibility are sheer propaganda, just rhetoric used because it plays well with focus groups.  The goal is to destroy SS, and Bush's primary motivation is because that's what his team wants and the other team opposes.  It really doesn't go much deeper than that.

      by jqb on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:57:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kevin Drum offers an explanation (none / 0)

      Kevin Drum is offering an explanation that makes sense.

      He quotes from Jon Chait in the New Republic: "The Five Easy Pieces strategy postulates that the long-time conservative goal of a sweepingly radical tax overhaul, such as replacing the income tax with a flat tax or a national sales tax, runs too much political risk. Instead, [longtime tax lobbyist Ernest] Christian has argued, conservatives can achieve the same goal by doing five things: cutting marginal tax rates, eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, allowing more generous treatment of business investment, doing away with the estate tax, and establishing tax-free personal savings accounts. The three major Bush tax cuts to date have achieved the first four pieces, partially or completely."

      That sounds to me like a real incentive for Democrats to take a true "scorched earth - no compromises ever" position. With what I know of Bush, such a position is a good idea no matter what he plans.

      The argument has been that Democrats needed to sometimes work with Republicans to do the business of government for America. I think it is now clear to many of us that the first thing that needs to be done for America is to neuter and if possible remove Bush. There is no other business of any similar importance except perhaps to get American troops out of Iraq.

      I wonder if I can still consider myself a moderate Democrat?

      Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:38:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well... (none / 0)

    ...after this, they won't even be able to afford the flowers for the casket.

    The New Democrat

    The Donkey Has Arrived -http://www.centristdonkey.blogspot.com

    by demburns on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:22:08 AM PDT

  •  From today's WaPo (none / 0)

    And interesting comment from Howard Kurtz as he looks back the the GOPer campaign against "Hillary-care"...

    "A year later, when Democrats were trying to save the plan, Representative John Dingell reached out to a House Republican but was reportedly told, 'John, there's no way you're going to get a single vote on this side of the aisle. You will not only not get a vote here, but we've been instructed that if we participate in that undertaking at all, those of us who do will lose our seniority and will not be ranking minority members within the Republican Party.' "

    Democrats should use that same approach for those who are flirting with supporting Enronization of Social Security.  This will be the time when they can show the voter Democrats do stand for something.

    Howard Kurtz

    Republicans are afflicted by CHIDS-Chronic Humor and Irony Deficit Syndrome, pronounced 'kids' with a parental sigh.

    by stumpy on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

Permalink | 48 comments