GratisNet: "'In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to seem dramatic tonight, but I've lived a long while, and for the first time in my life, I have this faint, faraway fear that it could happen to us here in America as it happened to the Greek and Roman civilizations.
'Too many Americans don't understand what we have here, or how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had, and I sense it slipping away.'
Andy Rooney 60 Minutes (CBS) May, 2004
Andy Rooney is not the only person having such thoughts in these times. I, too, have the fear but it is not faint, nor far away but rather perilously close as long as Bush and his gang of fascists are in power. It is close as long as otherwise good, solid, patriotic citizens cannot or will not recognize the current regime for what it is.
Mark this well, for when America falls, it will be a long and hard fall and there will be no country in this world that will render assistance and that will be a measure of just how much Bush and his band of fascist miscreants have alienated the world. Squandering the massive goodwill built by our people since WW2 was not enough for these thugs, they had to act in such ways that brought scorn and derision from our former allies.
This regime has brought new meaning to the phrase, 'Ugly American' and in fact makes the novel of the same name seem like a fairy tale for preschool children."
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Be on the alert
GratisNet: "Now is the time to be on the alert for other manifestations of the unamerican agenda of the Bush regime. While the proposed destruction of Social Security is being fought tooth and nail, it would behoove everyone not to forget that the attack on Social Security could well be a feint by Bush to keep the opposition engaged while ramming through the rest of his objectionable ideas.
Increased drilling in the ANWAR is one such idea. It matters not that even the most optimistic estimates for the reserves to be found there equate to less than a year of national consumption. It matters not that the damage to the environment, both flora and fauna will be extensive and, in fact has already been extensive in those areas of the arctic that have been exploited over the past 30 years. No, all that matters is that Bush repay his supporters in the oil bidness.
Updating, a quaint turn of a word, the Patriot Act to extend the duration and power of the regime to spy on its citizens, citizens who have done nothing, except perhaps engage in our constitutionally, and God given right of, dissent in opposing the unamerican activities of this increasingly despotic regime.
Introducing National Drivers License/ID legislation to make it stunningly easy to keep track of citizens. Perhaps this legislation is a precursor to an Internal Passport similar to that used by the former USSR to control their citizens. There already is more than adequate cooperation among the states regarding Drivers Licenses/IDs for wasn't that the object behind the reciprocal agreements made between the states, agreements to make their information available to one another upon showing adequate cause? There are those who would say that given the extent of the states cooperation, what would be the harm in a national system when we defacto have one now? The harm is quite simply this, under the current system it requires any number of state organizations to pass on requests for data, under the proposed legislation, that power would be given to one agency and as has been demonstrated amply in the past and most especially in the Bush regime, such power would be abused.
Contact your representative and senators to fight these and other intrusions by the Bush regime upon our national treasures, including the most precious of our treaures, our privacy and freedom."
Increased drilling in the ANWAR is one such idea. It matters not that even the most optimistic estimates for the reserves to be found there equate to less than a year of national consumption. It matters not that the damage to the environment, both flora and fauna will be extensive and, in fact has already been extensive in those areas of the arctic that have been exploited over the past 30 years. No, all that matters is that Bush repay his supporters in the oil bidness.
Updating, a quaint turn of a word, the Patriot Act to extend the duration and power of the regime to spy on its citizens, citizens who have done nothing, except perhaps engage in our constitutionally, and God given right of, dissent in opposing the unamerican activities of this increasingly despotic regime.
Introducing National Drivers License/ID legislation to make it stunningly easy to keep track of citizens. Perhaps this legislation is a precursor to an Internal Passport similar to that used by the former USSR to control their citizens. There already is more than adequate cooperation among the states regarding Drivers Licenses/IDs for wasn't that the object behind the reciprocal agreements made between the states, agreements to make their information available to one another upon showing adequate cause? There are those who would say that given the extent of the states cooperation, what would be the harm in a national system when we defacto have one now? The harm is quite simply this, under the current system it requires any number of state organizations to pass on requests for data, under the proposed legislation, that power would be given to one agency and as has been demonstrated amply in the past and most especially in the Bush regime, such power would be abused.
Contact your representative and senators to fight these and other intrusions by the Bush regime upon our national treasures, including the most precious of our treaures, our privacy and freedom."
Monday, February 14, 2005
PERRspectives Blog: Bush on the Couch
PERRspectives Blog: Bush on the Couch: "I agree with Joe. To borrow from Churchill, Never before has someone with so little to offer been given so much and done so little with it.
Posted by Jared on Wonkette February 11, 2005 02:37 PM"
Right on Jared!
Posted by Jared on Wonkette February 11, 2005 02:37 PM"
Right on Jared!
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
What it means to be a Liberal.
GratisNet: Being a Liberal means having respect for the rights and opinions of others, even when those opinions are opposite yours and most especially when they are being shouted at you. Being a Liberal means having respect for the idea of equality, equality in education, equality in opportunity, equality in employment and equality at the ballot box. Being a Liberal means having the desire to promote the welfare of the people, all the people, and not being afraid or ashamed to admit that at times, government is the only organization large enough and strong enough to do the job.
Can anyone seriously imagine that minorities would have the right to vote, have the unlimited use of public facilities, etc. without the civil rights movement of the sixties, a movement that was driven by people proud to wear the label of Liberal? Being a liberal means believing in all those things that motivated the Founding Fathers to revolt against King George and those who would deny that simple truth are playing fast and loose with the history of those tumultuous times.
Finally, being a Liberal means that we are our brother's keeper, we do have an obligation, as a society, to help those who, for whatever reason, have fallen upon bad times and we most assuredly have a moral obligation to ensure that our elderly citizens can experience their twilight years with security and dignity. Being a Liberal means living the morality expounded in the tenets of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as those of Islam and the religions of the East. In other words, being a Liberal can be expressed as the ultimate morality, ie: Doing unto others as you would have done to you.
So the next time you hear someone from the "I've got mine and the hell with you" conservative crowd speak of morals and patriotism, remind them of what it means to be a Liberal and remind them that their political philosophy was wrong for America in 1776, for it was the philosophy of the Loyalists of that time, and it is most certainly wrong for America in 2005 and beyond.
Can anyone seriously imagine that minorities would have the right to vote, have the unlimited use of public facilities, etc. without the civil rights movement of the sixties, a movement that was driven by people proud to wear the label of Liberal? Being a liberal means believing in all those things that motivated the Founding Fathers to revolt against King George and those who would deny that simple truth are playing fast and loose with the history of those tumultuous times.
Finally, being a Liberal means that we are our brother's keeper, we do have an obligation, as a society, to help those who, for whatever reason, have fallen upon bad times and we most assuredly have a moral obligation to ensure that our elderly citizens can experience their twilight years with security and dignity. Being a Liberal means living the morality expounded in the tenets of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as those of Islam and the religions of the East. In other words, being a Liberal can be expressed as the ultimate morality, ie: Doing unto others as you would have done to you.
So the next time you hear someone from the "I've got mine and the hell with you" conservative crowd speak of morals and patriotism, remind them of what it means to be a Liberal and remind them that their political philosophy was wrong for America in 1776, for it was the philosophy of the Loyalists of that time, and it is most certainly wrong for America in 2005 and beyond.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Bush Stiffs Veterans, farmers, kids and the needy.
GratisNet: "The latest budget offered by the Lyin' King cuts pretty much everything in order to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted by the most anti-american regime ever to hold power in the nations history. Educational funding, cut. Programs for the needy, cut. Programs for family farmers, cut. and of course big budget cuts at the VA in addition to higher charges for services it provides.
The copay for prescriptions will increase over 200%. There will be an annual fee of $250 just to access the system for some classes of veterans. The net result of this will be reduced access to medical care for elderly and not so elderly veterans. This is the sorry excuse for a man that convinced veterans that he cared about them, that he alone would never forget them or the sacrifices they made. He lied!
To all veterans who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote, now?' To all Christians who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'After his slashing programs for the elderly, the poor, education and the unemployed I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote now?
When will the so called Moral Majority wake up and realise that the Lyin' King acts in a manner directly contradictory to the teachings of their Jesus Christ? None are so blind as those who will not see!"
The copay for prescriptions will increase over 200%. There will be an annual fee of $250 just to access the system for some classes of veterans. The net result of this will be reduced access to medical care for elderly and not so elderly veterans. This is the sorry excuse for a man that convinced veterans that he cared about them, that he alone would never forget them or the sacrifices they made. He lied!
To all veterans who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote, now?' To all Christians who voted for the sorry bastard I ask this, 'After his slashing programs for the elderly, the poor, education and the unemployed I ask this, 'Are you proud of that vote now?
When will the so called Moral Majority wake up and realise that the Lyin' King acts in a manner directly contradictory to the teachings of their Jesus Christ? None are so blind as those who will not see!"
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Bush's "plan" for Social Security is a con job.
GratisNet: "From today's Washington Post:
Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
So there you have it. You save and Bush takes for unlike the real deal of FDR's Social Security where barring your demise, you receive every penny you paid into the system, in the example above not only will you get screwed out of the rate of return on your savings, Bush's plan also takes 47.25% of the money that you had withheld. That isn't the government's money (to borrow a favorite GOPig phrase), it's your money.
How do you like them apples? Tell me again how Bush and his gang of thugs are looking out for the average American."
Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's.
With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
So there you have it. You save and Bush takes for unlike the real deal of FDR's Social Security where barring your demise, you receive every penny you paid into the system, in the example above not only will you get screwed out of the rate of return on your savings, Bush's plan also takes 47.25% of the money that you had withheld. That isn't the government's money (to borrow a favorite GOPig phrase), it's your money.
How do you like them apples? Tell me again how Bush and his gang of thugs are looking out for the average American."
State of the Union
GratisNet: "Has there ever been such innuendo, half truths and outright lies given in an SOTU? Not in my 64 years do I remember such a load of bovine excrement put before the American people.
These people have no shame. These people have no honor. These people have no ethics. The childish nonsense with the purple fingertips is a prime example of the form over substance problem in the Republican party. They no more have the interest of America and Americans at heart then does Osama bin Forgotten.
As for the privatizat... uh, personaliza... uh, 'reform' of the highly successful and solvent Social Security system, remember the term 'benefit offset' for it is an integral part of the Bush plan to kill the most successful program to protect seniors in the nations history. Simply put, any funds in your (pick one) personal or private account at the time of retirement that are in excess of the amount you are slated to receive during said retirement, shall be returned to the government. Cute, huh? Is it any wonder why the accomplished liar did not mention it last night?
From the Washington Post:
Even more curiously, a 'senior administration official' who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new 'personal' or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a 'benefit offset.' It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.
'...it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.' Duh! ya think? Does their balloon ever land? Do these people ever engage their brains when dreaming up the schemes to defraud the people? You can be sure of two things regarding the 'reform' of Social Security: 1. Their 'reform' is not reform as it is defined in Webster's. 2. There will be no security in Social Security when they finish with it.
The Liar in Chief mentioned FDR last night. I have news for the Lyin' King, as a child, I remember FDR and he most assuredly isn't him! In fact he couldn't carry the soiled underwear of that great president."
These people have no shame. These people have no honor. These people have no ethics. The childish nonsense with the purple fingertips is a prime example of the form over substance problem in the Republican party. They no more have the interest of America and Americans at heart then does Osama bin Forgotten.
As for the privatizat... uh, personaliza... uh, 'reform' of the highly successful and solvent Social Security system, remember the term 'benefit offset' for it is an integral part of the Bush plan to kill the most successful program to protect seniors in the nations history. Simply put, any funds in your (pick one) personal or private account at the time of retirement that are in excess of the amount you are slated to receive during said retirement, shall be returned to the government. Cute, huh? Is it any wonder why the accomplished liar did not mention it last night?
From the Washington Post:
Even more curiously, a 'senior administration official' who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new 'personal' or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a 'benefit offset.' It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.
'...it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.' Duh! ya think? Does their balloon ever land? Do these people ever engage their brains when dreaming up the schemes to defraud the people? You can be sure of two things regarding the 'reform' of Social Security: 1. Their 'reform' is not reform as it is defined in Webster's. 2. There will be no security in Social Security when they finish with it.
The Liar in Chief mentioned FDR last night. I have news for the Lyin' King, as a child, I remember FDR and he most assuredly isn't him! In fact he couldn't carry the soiled underwear of that great president."
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
CRS report on proposed Price-Indexing Social Security Benefits.
The Congressional Research Service issued a report titled, Estimated Effect of Price-Indexing Social Security Benefits on the Number of Americans 65 and Older in Poverty.
The report reads in part, "...the Congressional Research Service has estimated the effects that a specific cut in Social Security benefits would have had on the number of Americans age 65 and older with incomes below the federal poverty threshold in 2003. As you specified the benefit cut would be based on the ratio of the consumer price index to the average national wage index, using 1940 as the base for both indices."
The result, which can be viewed at CRS Report shows that had Bush's plan been in effect during 2003, some 7 million more seniors ( a 300% increase) would have found themselves below the poverty line. Can there be any doubt, given the fact that the CRS is a non-partisan unit of the congress, as to the damage the proposed plan would do to Americas seniors?
Is this what is meant by compassionate conservatism? Remember the old adage regarding numbers and liars when considering the CRS report and Bush's claims regarding Social Security. The figures don't lie but liars figure. They figure they can confuse you with numbers which also brings to mind another old saying.
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
The report reads in part, "...the Congressional Research Service has estimated the effects that a specific cut in Social Security benefits would have had on the number of Americans age 65 and older with incomes below the federal poverty threshold in 2003. As you specified the benefit cut would be based on the ratio of the consumer price index to the average national wage index, using 1940 as the base for both indices."
The result, which can be viewed at CRS Report shows that had Bush's plan been in effect during 2003, some 7 million more seniors ( a 300% increase) would have found themselves below the poverty line. Can there be any doubt, given the fact that the CRS is a non-partisan unit of the congress, as to the damage the proposed plan would do to Americas seniors?
Is this what is meant by compassionate conservatism? Remember the old adage regarding numbers and liars when considering the CRS report and Bush's claims regarding Social Security. The figures don't lie but liars figure. They figure they can confuse you with numbers which also brings to mind another old saying.
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Too stupid for words
GratisNet: "Fred Barnes, 'for the editors' in the Weekly Standard: The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can't afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006.
So tell me again how the miscreants on the right are not fascists and traitors to what America stands for?"
So tell me again how the miscreants on the right are not fascists and traitors to what America stands for?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
