Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > September > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSocial Security a trick on illegals?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Well, if it’s an election season, some national politician is bound to be pandering to the old folks on Social Security. And, sure enough, one is. Democrat Hillary Clinton promised the American Association of Retired Persons Tuesday that as President she will bring a “renewed national commitment to Social Security” and will neither reduce benefits, raise the retirement age nor “privatize” the system.
“This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States,” she said to a legislative conference of the Democratic-leaning gimmee organization. “When I’m president, privatization is off the table because it’s not the answer to anything.” She vowed, instead, to insure solvency through fiscal responsibility.
In 2005, President Bush proposed to introduce personal savings accounts that workers under the age of 55 could own and transfer to their heirs. Democrats railed against the idea and Republicans backed down. The President took Social Security reform off the table.
Hillary’s promise comes without specifics. Without question, though, something has to be done. Baby boomers soon begin retiring and over the next 75 years, the payout is projected to be double-digit higher than the payroll taxes collected. The options: Raise the payroll tax, means-test benefits, index benefits to prices rather than wages (something that already should have been done) or raise the retirement age from 67.
Bush was on the right course two years ago. But Congress did nothing. And now Hillary’s promising that nothing significant will happen on, God forbid, her watch in the White House.
I’ve long been convinced that Social Security is a trick on illegal immigrants. They come here, work, and zap! We hand them the bill for the old folks who are voting themselves more and more benefits to be financed on the backs of workers through the payroll tax.
Young workers, and those illegals too, would have been far better off had they been allowed to put aside at least a portion of those taxes, as Bush wanted, for themselves and their survivors.
Comments
By jbmlaw
September 5, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Sounds like one of those analogy questions on an SAT: “Social Security” is to “most successful domestic program in the history of the United States” as “Enron” is to:
a) most ethical company in the history of the United States
b) most successful company in the history of the United States
c) most innovative company in the history of the United States
d) Democrat party fund raiser.
I think even our most pro-socialism friends will acknowledge that the system is bankrupt, that its unfunded liabilities greatly exceed its long-term potential receipts. The question therefore arises, how to reform? Potential solutions include (1) taxpayer funding without limitation, (2) diminishment of growth in dollar payments of benefits, and (3) diminishment of benefits by raising age of eligibility. Jbmlaw favors a combination of (2) and (3).
I think the “personal savings accounts” was a brilliant solution for those of us competent for financial management; I also understand that many people are incapable of achieving more than the government managed 2% return, and of course we may not permit any to obtain more than the stupidest in our midst.
I perceive the tax assessed our alien friends is not particularly resented – they are grateful for the chance to work here, and that, to them, is just a cost of the benefit. Would that our native-borns held such an attitude toward the privilege of work.
Also, totally off point today, I wish to salute the ladies of the blog. I had no time and little meaningful thought to contribute to the topic as it evolved yesterday, but jct, Shar, Debbie, Dusty, @@, and others (apologies for omissions) posted some marvelous arguments yesterday. I did not read until last night, but the exchange was possibly the most intelligent the blog has seen. I note that it was not a particularly-political topic, but one rooted in ethics and morality, those other pillars of Thinking Right.
By Anonymous
September 5, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this
So, everything Hillary said was accurate and reflects the will of the people… and Wooten is forced to nitpick in order to find SOME way of attacking government’s #1 success story.
The so-called “funding crisis”? Easily managed, if it ever DOES manifest, through simple fiscal responsibility, as Hillary said. Or by removing the salary cap that protects the income of the wealthiest 5%. Problem solved, with no need to shift the retirement age or cut benefits.
But that would preserve FDR’s successful legacy, so conservatives can’t stand for that. They MUST find a way to privatize/dismantle Social Security, even though privatization is a lousy idea with a proven record of failure and zero popularity among the voters.
Good luck, neocons! Next year’s elections will show you just how deep a hole you’ve dug for yourselves… and start shoveling the dirt on top of you while the rest of the country moves on to a brighter future.
By Dave the First
September 5, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
We may have to go through the same pains that France did with socialism. It will take adopting the system and watching it fail to convince those educated in the public schools that socialism will never work no matter how much polish you apply.
By GodHatesTrash
September 5, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this
What a naive moron.
Damn few illegal employers are withholding for their illegal employees - a large part of the charm of hiring illegals is not having to do the paperwork and pay all the payroll insurances and do the withholding - break one rule and you might just as well break them all. Pay the mamacita that watches your babies with a couple of Franklins at the end of the week - pay the yard crew with some Jacksons, put your framing crew on 1099s (for you illiterates, that makes the employee/contractor responsible for withholding, in the case of illegals, or not) with phony tax ID#s - it’s not your responsibility as an employer to verify the ID - in fact it is against the law for you to not accept a document - voila - no withholding - no taxes.
Maybe some of the chicken processors are withholding - but I’ll bet none of the illegals are filing income tax returns, and the IRS in the south is toothless on enforcement. So, for less than 8% of their pay (SS and Medicare employee percentage), the illegal gets to stay here, work, and avail him/herself of social services and emergency room treatment for free - let’s face it, if it’s hard to find an illegal to pay him/her their social security, it is even harder to collect a debt from them if they don’t want to pay…
By Bikini Bimbo
September 5, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
I concur heartily with Jbmlaw’s very funny parallel-construct approach to satirizing Wooten’s column. (nice blog, jbmlaw). Thus I enjoin: Social Security is neither social, nor secure. Discuss.
” I think, that the US american social security program, as such, in so far as, and of course old people need things that young people, dont need things, and our children and their needs like in The Iraq, as such….do I look fat?”
Seriously, if I was ever 100% sure of something, it’s that I aint nevah gonna git a dime from social security. The value, in terms I understand, (1970 dollars,) is that I will get about $200/month. You wont be able to light a cigar for $200/month when I retire.
Thus I wont retire, I’ll always be a professional a-hole. You know sometimes I cant believe people pay me to do this, hell, I’d do it for free.
My advice to people is to do something you love.
By Grading Wooten
September 5, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
God hates trash: Wooten’s column went over your head again. Wow. You criticize Wooten for making the point you made, only he does it with slight of hand. (and with one pregnant phrase, while you took 500 words, see Y he’s a pro?)
This is why I say, “please read Wooten’s column three times before you blog”.
By WTF
September 5, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
Jim, I didn’t realize you were on a first-name basis with Senator Clinton. Do you refer to President Bush as George, or Vice President Cheney as Dick, or Senator Craig as Larry?
By Peter
September 5, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
HA HA HA Jim Whooten…….. Well I guess you have to come up with some silly and stupid column each day…….
Why would any trust Bush with fixing Social Security……… he has yet to get anything right as KING !!!!
By @@
September 5, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
I am shocked Jim! You’re telling me that Democrats would actually “use” people to fund a program without offering specifics, only guarantees?
O.K., here’s another solution. Let’s make some babies. Well, not you and I Jim; we’re both spoken for and I know I’ve already produced my contribution. You?
Anyhoo, BABIES…that’s the answer!
We’ll put them to work full-time after school. Age 10 sound O.K.?
By getalife
September 5, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
Thank you President Clinton.
Clintons 08!
By Curious Observer
September 5, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
It is, to use a hackneyed TFTT phrase, hugely amusing to see the Republicans still railing against Social Security. They fought it when FDR had it introduced, and they still fight it today. Not content with promoting policies that have effectively eliminated employer-sponsored, defined benefit pension plans, along with unions, they now want to subject the last vestige of assured retirement income to the vagaries of the stock market and employer whims. Above all, they don’t want employers to have to match employee contributions to Social Security.
The “funding crisis,” as Anonymous has pointed out, is easily resolved. Simply remove the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. Why should those earning more than $100,000 get a free ride once they pass the existing cap? Why do people who earn barely a living wage have to pay Social Security tax on their entire earned income, while the wealthy escape Social Security taxes on any earned income beyond the cap? I don’t see that solution listed among Wooten’s proposed fixes. I expect to see Wooten propose it once hell is turned into a skating rink.
That simple solution, coupled with the elimination of corporate welfare, extravagant defense budgets, and tax cuts for the wealthy, takes care of the “funding crisis.” We seem to spend more on supporting Halliburton’s $15 ripoff soldier meals and Blackwater’s security army than we do on paying Social Security benefits.
Social Security is a compact between generations. The act that gave rise to the plan marks a national departure from the “nature red in tooth and claw” mentality that characterized the ruthless attitudes of Republicans like Harding and Coolidge and Hoover. Most of us who have been around for a while know that TFTT, jbmlaw, Van, @@, and Dusty would be perfectly content with a return to the days of the impoverished elderly who must be content with moving in with relatives as a survival plan for the last years of their lives—while these fine ladies and gentlemen scream their little mantra of “personal responsibility.”
Sorry, folks. The old tug-on-the-forelock relationship between the affluent and the poor died many decades ago. It isn’t coming back, and this country is ready to show the advocates of privatization of Social Security the door. Get ready to pay your taxes to support decency for a change.
By ron
September 5, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Wooten,I listened to one of you right thinkers rail against social security all his life.Now he's disabled and trying desperately to get on the rolls.I sincerely hope they deny him any benefits.By Whatsthedeal
September 5, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
If so many folks are unhappy with Social Security and fear there won’t be any left for them … then start putting your money where your mouth is… invest it …or whatever!! You don’t have to rely on just Social Security —— duh!!!!. I could never understand why Bush was pushing for personal savings accounts … what the hell! You can have a “personal savings account” anyhow!!! He-l-lo!!!
By Explaining Wooten
September 5, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
Okay, here’s what Wooten meant: Everyone knows that illegals are paid in cash, and no payroll tax is deducted, then 50 illegals pile into the same pickup truck and drive to the same trailer where 150 of them (wives and children) all drink tequilla till they pass out).
Wooten is saying this: Look at Soc. Sec. It is a foolhardy entitlement being artificially prolonged by the Death-to-America liberals, who seem hell bent on performing the “Mexican pass the Hat Dance” till we become insolvent.
Wooten is saying that a large part of our GNP is not included in the tax base, thus we will experience financial catastrophe if we keep doing like the Romans did when they were in ancient rome: (increased entitlements to elite idlers who felt the world owed them a living just because they existed).
there are many who think Rome fell because of the entitlements.
Wooten’s column is powerful in that he accomplishes the impact necessary to create the motivation for change without demagoguery, (if I may be so pedantic).
By Whatsthedeal
September 5, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
And another thing …everyone is so worried that ALL the baby boomers are going to get all the Social Security benefits …does anyone realize how many will die before they get any at all and those who live probably won’t live long!!! I was told that the “average” length of time a person lives after they retire is five years.
By Southern Democrat
September 5, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
My main problem with “Social Security reform” is that it actually doesn’t need to occur. We all look at the inputs and outputs and realize the incredible shortcoming within the system itself. What politicians hide from the citizenry and we all collectively forget is that the government has been “borrowing” from the Social Security Trust Fund for years and years and years. The symptom might be financing gaps in Social Security, but the illness is an overbloated government with profligate spending.
Democrats have pushed Social Security and universal healthcare in one form or another for voer 40 years now… what they don’t do a good job of explaining is that, while expensive, these programs can work! If we were to balance the budget and begin paying off some of our crushing debt, that would be a start… couple that with a drastic reduction in earmark spending and we are on the way to a healthier economy with a healthier citizenry.
The Bush Administration has really squandered a lot of opportunities (I’ll confine this rant to just the economic realm) and created an untenable situation whereby the government has rapidly expanded with unparalleled spending and tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy have provided a temporary surge in revenue that will most probably not be sustained. Further, the growth in revenue is not being used to reduce debt, shore up reserves or anything else sensible… it is being used to fund our massive government (and I won’t even discuss our Iraqi welfare payments).
Democratic leaders need to get on a no-pork diet and show the nation (or perhaps more importantly, their elected officials) that Social Security and universal healthcare are achievable with some fiscal responsibility.
By deport all illegal mexican type criminal illegal id stealing leeches now
September 5, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
SNIGGER SNIGGER SNIGGER
the execrable leftist turdmunchingwankkker peeping tom is OBSESSED with yours truly. Two days running now its first deranged post (if not exactly approximating a thought) is of its genetic and intellectual conservative better.
Yesterday peeping tom utterly humiliated itself with a pack of pandering lies about yours truly and the undeniable 70% black b astard rate and the concomitant decades of overwhelmingly disproportionate black criminality, culminating in the almost genocidal (for peace time) 49% black murder rate in 2005.
Now the witless lying scum peeping tom pukes up yet more obsequious pandering lies about the endless criminality of the infestation of illegal mexican type leeches and their ilk, whilst as ever despicably lying about the law abiding conservative reaction to this illegal leech invasion.
ALL liberal scum need to be removed from America ASAP. Such a cancerous, perfidious, cut and run appeasing enemy within will only get more hysterical and dangerous as their corrosive lies and psychotic Bush Derangement Syndrome ooze out of the oparty of hate media and the demoNcrat gimme gimme w hores in congress.
By Redneck Convert
September 5, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
Well, I never figured out why we paid old fa-ts to be old fa-ts. If they get too old to work they ought to have the decency to die off and stop being a burden on everybody. This Social Security is a big ripoff. I get mad every time I see my pay stub. There’s enough took out there to keep me in Skoal and Red Man and PBR for two months.
I’m with Wooten. Cut the benefit so the old fa-ts don’t eat so good and die early. Or make them pay more taxes while they are still working. Or make them work till they are 90 or so. That way they won’t live long enough to draw much Social Security and the fund will grow real fat and maybe us hard working taxpayers can get a refund. There’s plenty of jobs for old fa-ts. They can be WalMart greeters or maybe work at a McDonalds window if people say their orders real slow. They could even be baby setters if they can stay awake longer than the kids.
Anyway, Social Security is a big drain on business. I was in Billy Bob’s the other night and this owner of a yard cutting service says he might have to close up shop if he keeps having to pay Social Security taxes. Says his third country club membership is getting too much to pay and he might have to give up the Lexus he keeps for his kids in high school. If it wasn’t for the illegal Mexicans he don’t pay Social Security tax for he couldn’t make it.
Anyway, I know I can count on Sister Dusty and jbmlaw and TFTT and Van and @@ to chime in to say just what I’m saying. Only they will be real polite about it but it will mean the same thing. Have a good day everybody.
By getalife
September 5, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
KO catches w in the biggest lie of his failed presidency
Only a Dem President can get us out of Iraq and clean up the perverted gop mess.
Clintons 08!
By Captain Freedom
September 5, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
THE Captain is warmed to his core by Mr Wooten’s deep concern for the illegal immigrants. One would think that this is out of character, given his Right Thinking disregard for Those People II. But this really is Compassionate Right Thinking at its best. See Redneck’s comment above for a full description.
By Rovespierre
September 5, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Notice the “Rove’s Greatest Hits” countdown of US troop’s mission in Iraq lately? They’ve reissued the unplugged box set of reasons for war. Today, W played the long version of the 45 hit, “We’ll stay in Iraq till they have a government that can sustain itself, defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.”
I love that song. It was number one till “They’ll follow us home” came out. I like that song, but you cant dance around the issues as well to it.
By Marie
September 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Jim, If your stupid theory that Social Security is a trick on illegals was plausible, I would say “Thank God something GOOD is coming from allowing these illegal aliens to invade our country.” I would also be glad to know that Hillary is too stupid to realize it, since she would never knowlingly allow the illegals to be taken advantage of. She only wants to take advantage of the citizens who have worked hard for many years.
That whole article just got on my nerves.
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
The real reason we fight in Iraq? China wants and needs that oil supply and is willing to align with Iran and grab it.
Cheney classified this reason along with the trite things he classified so as to buffer this bombshell. We cant rush to war with china. These things must be handled… delicately. We are so close to perfecting our hoards of flying monkeys….give us time…give us time…..(cue hour glass)…….
By deegee
September 5, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
The imminent social security dilemma has precious little to do with illegal immigration. JW has to do something to stir up the soup. Here is a forum for the illegal invasion conspiracy theorists. Go forth and wallow.
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/immigration
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
The best social security is a savings plan: save ten dollars a day, and in thirty years, you’ll have saved 110,000 dollars and you’ll also have earned twice that in interest. You wont be rich, but you’ll be secure in a social sense.
But people look at 10 dollars a day and say, “I speet on $10 a day”.
By WTF
September 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Anyone else notice that while Jim has been saying that opponents of the war need to wait for the September report, now that we have the first information from the GAO on how things are going in Iraq, today’s blog is about Social Security?
By OnlyTheRichSurvive
September 5, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
We don’t need to stinkin’ social security. Just let people work and live and if they don’t save money to live on when they get old then let them lay in their houses and die. They shoulda’ planned better and saved their money. If they fall on hard times well that’s just too bad, that’s the luck of the draw. Only the rich should survive.
By jm
September 5, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Funny thing about investing that seems to be lost on some touting “personal savings accounts” and that is fraud, deception or incompetence. Enron - hot stock, great investment (at least that is what those who rate stcoks were telling us). Same deal for WorldCom. Delta, while not quite as hot, was supposedly a great investment. Well, we see where that got people who invested in those companies for their retirement, nothing.
Now I wonder what is going to happen to people who invested in those AAA bonds (safest out there) either directly or indirectly through 401ks, made up of sub prime mortgages that are starting to tank.
Of course, the folks who touted those stocks and bonds got their money, so why should they care that others got screwed.
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this
If the illegal immigrants would save 10 pesos a day, then they’d have social security too.
Few people realize this: If the illegals start to save, and the white bread legals dont save, then in thirty years, we’ll have an upside down society of illegal haves and legal have-nots and guess which one the candidates for the 2040 election will pander to?
Something to worry about now. that’s 4 sure, that’s 4 dang sure.
By Terrence
September 5, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Every time a lib wants to cap corporate profits they’re cutting into people’s 401Ks — a conservative’s alternative to SS.
Freaking idiots.
By Jackie
September 5, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
The discussion about the Social Security funding and the benefits offered are old and tired. I think we all understand what it takes to make it work and why it is still in place. What are the citizens going to do about a President and his Administration that are totally out of control. The release of a book about Duybya and his response to items in the book are disgusting. He stated that the fault with the war was with other people and he did not recollect the decisions by Paul Bremmer to disband the Iraqi Army; the Harriet Miers potential selection to the Supreme Court was a suggestion by John Roberts, the current Supreme Court Chief Justice; Karl Rove did not want Dick Cheyney as the VP; and the greatest dump on the citizens is his statement that Dubya needs to get this Administration through next year so that he could go out and make some “real” money. He planned to be walking the halls of the UN as a high-paid lobbyist. Dubya said that his father and Bill Clinton made major dollars with speaking engagements and using all means a their disposal to ensure that they would make money and he is doing the same thing. If the House does not begin impeachment proceedings against this man, the Dems will be voted out in the next election.
By Jackie
September 5, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Breaking news item indicates the Iraqi Police force unqualified and not ready for duty and should be disbanded. Wonder what we have doing all those years and spending all that money for. Are these they folks that are suppose to stand up so that our forces can stand down?
I would like to take this broken toy back and get my money back. Forgot, don’t know where the $11 Billion dollars is! Ask Dubya, he will give you a coherent answer.
By @@
September 5, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Whoops! I was websurfing and ended up here with your column title staring me in the face Jim:
Social Security a trick on illegals?
If it wasn’t already your intention, I’m gonna apply a little sarcasm to your title….”Social Security?” a trick on illegals.
Americans have spoken and there is no “social” security for illegals here.
See ‘ya JW!
By getalife
September 5, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
White Flour!
Geez.
By Dusty
September 5, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
Jackie @ 1:15
I don’t believe that it is criminal for former presidents to make money even with public speaking. Since when is making money legal grounds for impeachment? Never heard you squawking about Bill Clinton’s big dollar speeches, the books about him and Hillary’s cooked up books.
@1:29 You seem to watch a limited number of liberal only newscasts. There were four Congressial members discussing Iraq on Lehrer News Hour last night. There were Democrats and Republicans. Three were very optimistic and only one was a defiant anti-war Democrat who thought everything was rotten. All had been to Iraq recently. Three were greatly encouraged by what they had seen. One was a Democrat who had changed from negative to positive about Iraq. I really felt that some in Congress were beginning to see the “light at the end of the tunnel”.
I am sure you will disagree, Jackie, as you seem to have a mind set in stone. But who knows? Perhaps even you might see that heading suppressed people towards sound government is worth the effort, even a future benefit for our country.
By @@
September 5, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Getalife:
By getalife September 5, 2007 1:44 PM
White Flour!
Geez.
Did you forget to pick it up at the grocery store? Need to borrow a cup?
It takes 2 cups to make biscuits.
Whatcha makin’?
By LaughoftheWeek
September 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
Ask Dubya, he will give you a coherent answer.
related, GW was asked at the press conference with the visiting French President, Sarkozy, if he was going to speak French.
Bush replied “French? I can hardly speak English”.
By Curious Observer
September 5, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Gee! What a surprise! Dusty weighs in with a strenuous defense of GWB’s plans to capitalize on speechmaking opportunities after he leaves office. And it’s simply stunning that she would point out the tremendous progress being made in Iraq, progress that would justify extending the U.S. mission through next April. I never imagined that she would say that!
Let me think, now. We were assured that the surge would last until September, at which time all would depend on Gen. Petraeus’s report. Then, we learned that the White House would be writing the report, not the good general. Then the White House launches an attack on the GAO’s report that the Iraqi government had failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks of progress. Then we start getting a broadside of assertions that the surge was working and that there had been tremendous progress in Iraq—along with a palliative hint that things are going so well over there that we might be able to withdraw 5 or 6 thousand troops. We also get a broadside of Republican Party ads with the theme “Give war a chance,” complete with testimonials from veterans of the war and appearances of Republican talking heads on various news shows.
All this propaganda points to April 2008 as the time when we can start drawing down US forces—a pure coincidence, for that is also the time that the Joint Chiefs say the troop commitment can no longer be sustained.
You know what? I’ll bet the report will say that we need to maintain most of the surge through April 2008. It’s just a wild guess on my part. And, of course, once April 2008 arrives, why, it’s only a few months until GWB’s presidency ends, so why not go ahead and keep the troops in there until there’s a new occupant in the White House? Heck, it’s only another eight months or so.
And, of course, the cowardly Democrats in Congress will allow it all to happen. They’re terrified that someone will say they don’t “support the troops.” Never mind that they control the purse strings. Gotta support the troops, you know.
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
We aint nevah gonna git outta The Iraq, as such.
By Dustbuster
September 5, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
“Perhaps even you might see that heading suppressed people towards sound government is worth the effort, even a future benefit for our country.”
YES!!! Vote Democrat in ‘08!
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
The democrats cant change the reality on the ground in the Iraq, as such.
What part of “they have 10K year old outhouses in Iraq, and they dont spare no squares”, dont you git?
I think pulling out of Iraq would be an insult to the US americans, as such.
By Jackie
September 5, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Dusty,Glad you could join the conversion today. There is no problem with FORMER Presidents making money, as much as they can. However, there is a problem when a SITTING President implies that he is just waiting for the bell to toll so that he can get out the current situation as his financial fortunes have taken a tumble. There is a problem when this man says the loss of life is unfortunate, but, that is the way it goes and the problems in this country is due to “other” people missteps. As for the Iraq debacle, sure, they have gone to Anbar province, the home of the Sunni resistance. The reason it is quite there is the Sunni’s need help in beating back al Qaeda. We are arming them and backing the Shiites in Baghadad. What will happen when the Sunnis beat up al Qaeda? Will we still support them? What will we do with the Madr Army and the “religious cleansing” in Baghdad and Basra? What will be do to keep the Turks out of Northern Iraq? How do we referee this war when we are selling/giving arms to whomever will take them and using our military to stand between the warring factions? I think you will agree that Baghdad is controlled by the Shiite’s. Since our newly stated goal is to bring democracy to the Middle East, the Shiite’s are a majority and in a democracy, majority rules. We know the Shiite’s are supported by Iran and we want to diminish the influence of Iran in the region. What is to be done to solve this problem. If things are getting better, why is it more US troops were killed in August than in July? When the Anbar problem is resolved, Iraq will explode!!!!
By Dusty
September 5, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Jackie,3:50
President Bush is simply saying the truth about public speaking. It would be more dishonest to act like he was going to sit home doing nothing.
You can ask a thousand questions but the people who started the killing are terrorists. If Bush looked to the future and saw more of them on the horizon eventually headed for this country AGAIN, then I’d say he had foresight. Whether al-quaida terrorists were in Iraq when our war started there is besides the point. Saddam was an Iraqi dictator and terrorists have gathered in Iraq like bees to honey. They would love to have central headquarters there to keep their worldwide network supplied. But THEY WILL NOT HAVE IT. We have stopped them. Anbar Sunnis are cooperating in the country’s efforts. The leader of the Kurds went to Turkey to talk about their problems. The surge has shown some success. THERE IS PROGRESS.
Now, if you want to be like Harry Reid and moan and cry everyday no matter our progress, go ahead. But it does not help the country or the troops. Anybody can point out problems. It takes strength of character to strive for a difficult goal. I hope politics do not get in your way.
By Dusty
September 5, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
Dustbuster @ 3:36
You said that we live in a SUPPRESSED COUNTRY.
Are you blogging from Cuba? You certainly deserve to be there, you anti-American liberal loser. Don’t waste time. GO…..
By HUH?
September 5, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this
Perhaps even you might see that heading suppressed people towards sound government is worth the effort, even a future benefit for our country.
wasn’t that from Dusty’s 2:40pm, referencing Iraq?
What kind of logic turns that into Dustbuster blogging from Cuba?
By HUH?
September 5, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
Dusty must be older than we thought, unable to keep track of her own words a mere few hours later.
Glad I do not get my world-events education from her or even this blog for that matter.
By catlady
September 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this
If you are surprised about anything regarding the surge and its “results”, please let me know. I have some used cars, “beachfront” property, etc. that I need to sell.
The report on the “” of the surge was written months ago—about the time the surge was announced. Praetus has sold his good name. And the fact that the GAO has found Iraq not doing its share—well it is biased or incorrect or unpatriotic or the benchmarks were not set up correctly or we haven’t spent enough money and lives, or…, …, …
By Analchord
September 5, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this
I love catlady! She rocks. First of all, the name is just so cool. It’s not catwoman, cause that would be too trailer park, and besides, it’s taken.
Catlady!
By Cat de-clawer
September 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this
Hey catlady, your beloved DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS (along with Republicans) ordered (voted for) the surge report, not Bush. So either way the results read, just remember YOUR people called for it.
Oh yeah, and the General’s name is spelled “Petraeus.” Idiot.
“The report on the “” of the surge was written months ago”
Prove it with a valid and credible link, not from some frothing mouth idiot liberal blog site like Huffington or Kos.
By catlady
September 6, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
De-claw, Sorry about the misspelling of our dear General (it’s all Greek to me) Petraeus.
I guess you work in a doctor’s office, because your knee-jerk (get it, medical reference) reaction caused you to think I was being critical of only our fearless (fly in and out under the cover of darkness) President and his surge. However, if you read it more carefully, you will notice that it is a condemnation of those who have taken part in this charade, be they Democrats or Republicans. Check your assumptions at the door, Tex.
I then realized you cannot work in a doctor’s office because you are not old enough; to wit, the name calling you love to indulge in, which reminds me of a six year old. However, if it makes you feel bigger……