NOTE: BagNewsNotes is now located at Please update your bookmarks.

You will be automatically redirected in a few seconds...

« Gunner's Palace Update | Main | Winning By A Landslide »

Jan 13, 2005

Feathering the Nest



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feathering the Nest:


That beats the current plan, which is 100% take and no give. Every penny you and everyone else has ever put in has already been spent. Your only hope of getting any money out is if the feds take it from someone else.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your objection and what you really don't like about the plan is that citizens get to keep anything rather than having all the money government owned.

Uh huh; GW is always thinking about the little guy, the backbone of the country, struggling to make ends meet, trying to better himself......just like Dubya himself, who he claims had to fight for everything he has in this life. Uh huh; what a tough break for him to be born into one of the wealthiest and politically powerful families in US history. The guy's a self-made failure.


And that's relevant how, exactly? But I suppose it's line with Michael's view, which is, as far as I can tell, that President Bush is a bad leader because Michael hasn't emotionally bonded with him. Actual policies and their effects are second order issues, if they matter at all. Which seems to be precisely the basis of your objection here as well: Since Bush lead a privileged life, his plan can't be good. Good thing we didn't elect a billionare gold-digger!

P.S. Did you know, that of the four Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in the last election, Bush was the least wealthy? The whole "child of privilege" angle never made a lot of sense for the backers of the two much wealthier candidates.

my assertion is that Bush is hypocritical to the extreme to suggest that he has somehow led anything but a charmed life. As to his policies, it is precisely this sort of augmented crisis which the administration trots out with amazing regularity, that leads us liberal a-holes with the distinct impression that your President doesn't actually give a damn about giving the little guy a leg up; as he is far more concerned with his ultra elite 'base' and their endless profit margin engineering to worry about how his tax breaks for wealthy CEO's are crippling your economy, not to mention the lower and middle classes.
His 'plan' for social security is to create paranoia over its impending 'collapse,' and then assure the country that it can only be saved by being destroyed.
Sounds like the same plan he had for Fallujah.


I didn't ask what your assertion was, I asked how it was relevant to the Social Security issue.

If I may sum up, then, the "logic" goes

Bush is a hypocrite → Bush is part of an evil robber baron cabal → his plan for Social Security is bad.

Gosh, how can anyone not be persuaded by such a stunning argument? I especially like how it involves no knowledge whatsoever of either the current system or Bush' planned new one. Sure does save time on the analysis!

Let me provide the view from the other side.

  • Social Security is already destroyed. It was done in by decades of a Democratic Party dominated Congress that refused to consider any reform while handing out additional money hand over fist to buy votes.
  • Social Security is so bad off that its defenders require the Big Lie of a "Trust Fund", which is an accounting trick that would embarrass Enron accountants. Even you simply spew irrelevant and generic vitriol at Bush rather than address any of my points.
  • Bush, at least, isn't playing "kick the can down the road". He is trying to address a real issue before it's a desperate crisis. He looks like he's have a lot of crises because he's busy cleaning up the mess the Democratic Party has spent decades papering over. It's not the stable hand's fault that there is donkey manure all over the barn.

AOG, are you laboring under the impression that I or anyone else would dare sway you from your God given right to believe your President has not, nay CANNOT do wrong? Sure, Iraq is a freaking disaster, but it's hard work bumbling through an ill-planned, unnecessary war. Sure there was an historic federal budget surplus when he took office; but Hell, these kinds of freedom missions are expensive. As to pushing an exclusionary, ultra conservative Christian agenda, when God himself chooses the big guy, well, who could find any fault with that? As far as his addressing real issues before they are a desperate crisis goes; where is bin Laden again? You ask for relevancy; is it not relevant that to you that this 'stable hand' has consistently presented to your nation a successive pack of lies regarding the 'crises' and 'issues' to tackle which have sunk your nation to its lowest point in history? Is it relevant to subsequently question and challenge his veracity in light of that track record? Forgive me for annoying you further; it's just that I thought conflicting opinions were still tolerated in democratic societies. I also detect more continued personal saracams which I believe I have mentioned are unnecessary, so if you persist, I'll have no choice but to respond in kind.

Can't we all just get along?

Social Security needs reform.
Suggesting 10% of the MANDATORY contribution be SELF DIRECTED does not seem extreme considering this would be done VOLUNTARILY.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

My Other Accounts

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003