McConnell’s Monotony
McConnell’s Monotony
President Bush hasn’t been able to garner much support for his Social Security privatization plan. Now the administration and its allies are in retreat. The new strategy is to refuse to address any substantive criticism of their proposal. Instead the former Social Security privatizers are remaking themselves into a group of people who just want an open, free-wheeling conversation on the topic.
Exhibit A: Mitch McConnell this morning on Meet the Press. No matter what question Russert asked, McConnell just repeated his desire for talk and discussion.
Well, why don’t we talk about all of it?
It’s time to sit down and talk about it.
Sure, let’s talk about the whole problem.
We can’t deal with any problem until we sit down on a bipartisan basis and start talking about it.
Why don’t we just sit down and start talking about the subject and see what we can work out on a bipartisan basis?
Looks to me like we’re heading in the direction of being able to sit down and have a bipartisan conversation, Tim…
Why not discuss it all, the whole problem, if we’re going to sit down on a bipartisan basis and have a broad- ranging discussion about how to solve this problem?
But why not discuss it?
At the risk of being redundant, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is to discuss all aspects of this.
But I think I hear Dick saying that maybe he’s willing to sit down and talk.
And I don’t believe in the end they will insist that we can’t discuss all aspects of this.
Why don’t we at least discuss that in the context of the overall effort to save Social Security for our children and our grandchildren?
I don’t think there ought to be any conditions whatsoever on beginning a bipartisan discussion to save Social Security for our children and our grandchildren.
Why don’t we just stop that and sit down together now that it’s clear from the tour of the last two days, that Dick and Harry Reid and others believe that it’s time to start talking?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’d like to sit down with everyone and have a frank and open discussion about this blog post.
March 6th, 2005 at 5:49 pmOne of the more interesting aspects of english grammar is the construct of pronoun antecedents. Poor Mitch never really learned that(grammar and syntax) it (state of existing proposition) seems. There must be some “it” that someone is willing to discuss. I sure hope that whatever “it” is isn’t as vague and dysarticulated as Mitch’s wishful thoughts.
March 6th, 2005 at 6:48 pmA ‘lack of details’ must be ”it”.
March 6th, 2005 at 7:32 pmComing next: “Democrats won’t talk about it”… “Democrats complain but refuse to give answers”… “Democrats only want to raise taxes”… etc.
And Democrats ought to hold the line right here until the Republicans take privatization off the table. Why the Dems aren’t waving Ronald Reagan in the Republican faces I’ll never know. Reagan caved, and signed SS into solvency for decades.
March 6th, 2005 at 8:35 pmNow you’re not being fair. There were occasions where McConnell misrepresented what President Clinton said in 1998. Be fair!
March 6th, 2005 at 9:28 pmIt’s completely clear that there’s never been any more to the bushie’s desire to clear the decks of Social Security than the arrogant belief that all that was necessary was to tell the American public that they had a better idea and that would be that and they could report back to Grover Norquist that the evil thing was gone and we’re moving on to destroying the option of bankruptcy thank you very much. This ain’t over but Mr. McConnell’s floundering shows clearly why the Dem’s cannot be throwing these guys ANY lifelines. People are beginning to catch on to what fluff headed, self serving basis these guys want to trash S.S. Their nefarious hollowness must be made glaringly apparent.
March 6th, 2005 at 10:18 pmI’m deeply worried about the public debate over Social Security and the prospect of the Bush administration borrowing another trillion dollars to subsidize private accounts. So far the Democratic reaction is in the negative. While that is the correct reaction to more deficit spending, it still means that Democrats are reacting to a Neo-con agenda. And the political facts of life are that you frame an issue by picking a fight. You don’t frame an issue by reacting.
Like it or not, Bush and the Neo-Cons have presented an initiative to “reform� Social security and in doing so have framed the issue. It doesn’t matter whether their initiative is fraudulent or not. It is axiomatic–If you pick a fight, you have framed an issue.
I submit that progressives and Democrats must pick a fight right now, must present an initiative to balance the budget. Picking a fight about the budget deficit frames the Bush budget for what it is, irresponsible deficit spending. That is something people in blue and red states can understand. And if people want to be responsible about Social Security, fiscal integrity is at the top of the list.
I’m tired of waiting for someone else to do something about this. Between March 14 and March 18 regular working people in New York and Florida are going to run progressive issue ads on conservative talk radio. We’re trying to call attention to the staggering deficits being written by the Bush administration, deficits that our children will have to re-pay.
here’s the link to hear the ads–
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/02/con05063.html
Robert Millman
Glenville, NY
March 6th, 2005 at 10:29 pmRight on regarding the ads. The issue of the deficit is just laying there waiting to be taken advantage of. The only blowback to the right from the S.S. issue is their own chagrin and “embarrassment” at being caught flatfooted in not having any plan behind all the smoke. They’re not being put on the defensive, they’re just twisting in the wind. The credit abuse mentality of this administration and it’s so called conservative minions fits right in with the current debate on bankruptcy laws. The gov’t wants to get away with what it’s telling debt burdened Americans they can’t get away with. The hypocrisy runs so deep. It’s an excellent frame within which to “pick a fight”.
March 6th, 2005 at 11:23 pmMcConnell’s daughter got canned from a Waldorf school for tying 5-year olds to their chairs. Maybe that’s what he means by sit down and talk?
March 7th, 2005 at 7:05 amYou’re talkin’ a lot, but you’re not sayin’ anything.
March 7th, 2005 at 10:49 amThey refuse to “talk” about anything that relates to easing the fiscal standing of SSI, specifically removing the $89,000 payroll tax cap. They (repubs & supportes of bush43’s eliminating SSI as a public vestment of the government) are only willing to “talk” about ways to eliminate (privatize) SSI.
Democrats, put forth ideas to maintain the financial integrity of the system while keeping it whole in it’s current form. No selling out on this one.
March 7th, 2005 at 11:05 amThe Democrats should be very carefuk. Bush touts a “plan” but has only offered vague generalities while demanding that Dems present specific proposals (?). This may be a gambit to spin Democratic responses so that they take the political heat for offering “irresponsible” changes to Social Security and the Bushies will become the saviours—by phasing the system into oblivion.
March 7th, 2005 at 12:42 pmRepublicans keep insisting that Democrats refuse to offer solutions to the imaginary SS crisis. Despite the lack of any evidence that there is a crisis, Dems have offered a couple of very good solutions to future funding shortfalls: raise the annual FICA cap (currently $89,000); let the estate tax (imposed on only 2% of the biggest estates) come back into force and apply those revenues to SS.
Also, whenever we Dems are attacked for not having any ideas or proposals and for being obstructionists, I think we should remind America that Social Security was our idea, and that if it had been up to Republicans there wouldn’t be any Social Security program to argue about.
March 7th, 2005 at 12:48 pmI don’t think the Democrats have any problem sitting down and talking about Social Security, or standing up and talking about it, for that matter. It seems, though, that what the GOP wants to talk about is private accounts, which have nothing to do with “saving� Social Security. As near as I can tell, the establishment of private accounts will enable Social Security to cut benefits at some unspecified future date, so it may be possible for it to stay even with benefit dollars paid in. Is that the same as “saving� it?
The burden for closing the gap between benefits paid under the “old� system, and those paid in a new, partially privatized system, falls on the individual. No one is addressing what happens to the person who retires in a down market, or whose private account has fallen victim to the bursting of some kind of market sector “bubble.�
If we have to have the Social Security conversation now, we should first determine and define that “truth,� and then we should recognize that there is a far more urgent need to have a conversation about Medicare and Medicaid. Right now, the truth the GOP is telling is little more than propaganda. It’s truth based on a vision or philosophy that fails to take into account that what is at stake is the financial health of millions of Americans, as well as the financial health of the country.
Details, details, details. If we have learned nothing else in the last four years, it should be to refuse to sign on to anything without them; we need only look to Iraq and prescription drug coverage for seniors to see what happens when we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that we just shouldn’t worry our silly little heads about it.
March 7th, 2005 at 1:01 pmThis SSI is nothing but a smoke screen just like the old USSR, they were always bring up issue that didn’t matter so they wouldn’t have to talk about issues that did matter. We should be talking about our National debt and trade defecit. If you solve those two items SSI will take care of it self. W. Loucks
March 7th, 2005 at 3:09 pmWhat people aren’t seeing here is the BIG picture. The conservatives want SS to be reformed and for all of us in the middle class to put our money into the stock market. Then, they have us. From that point on, all other laws currently on the books that protect us, such as environmental laws, labor laws, corporate law, etc., will be attacked by the right. They’re justification?–if we don’t change these laws, it will affect your retirement. If these companies have to spend millions/billions for safety, or lawsuits, it will affect their bottom line and the stocks will go down. Followed by your retirement.
It’s really quite devious and brilliant at the same time. I hope the rest of America wakes up and smells the rip-off.
March 7th, 2005 at 4:44 pm“On January 6, 2005, the White House wrote a Social Security memo. Although marked “not for attribution,” fortunately, we have it.
The most telling sentence in the entire memo is this: “For the first time in six decades the Social Security battle is one we can win – and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.”
Imagine: for six decades – that’s 60 years – the right wing has been after Social Security.
The memo also lays out the first priority for the White House and that is to “establish an important premise; the current system is heading for an iceberg” – thus explaining the use of the words “crisis,” “bankruptcy,” and “collapse.” By the way, he has also used the phrase “train wreck.”
So let’s talk about these scare tactics for a moment – the “iceberg” strategy. If someone told you that your family would be in solid shape for the next 38 years, you would probably breathe a sigh of relief because that would mean you had done everything necessary to prepare for the next 38 years to pay for your rent or mortgage, feed your kids, take care of your health care, and send your kids to college…”
March 7th, 2005 at 5:17 pmRemember to simply follow the money.
It’s the Enron-type Wall Street CEO’s that will benefit from a windfall of over $960 billion dollars in administration fees for “private accounts.” Then you will have the Insurance Industies taking their cut just to “underwrite” your benefits out of your program…after the extraction of over $2 trillion from SSA cash as a “deposit to get the ball rolling.” This is the zeinth of fiscal irresponsibility.
“Administration fees” will ultimately eat your meager 3% profit from “your private” account into a constantly fluctuating monitary night mare where no one knows the precise annual benefit.
The model these white collar crooks are using has already been initiated in Latin America. Remember Augusto Pinochet and Bush’s Riggs bank founded by Prescott Bush? Fasten your seat belts it’s about to happen here if we loose our filibuster rights…Chile’s Pinochet was an ugly dictator installed illegally by Kissinger.
Pinochet is just now being called on the carpet to reimburse money he illicitly directed to the Riggs bank…if the shoe fits… it’s still called a dictatorship…”your private pension account funding a dictator…” History is repeating itself!
The Chilean and Argentine models have been less than satisfactory due to the high administration costs for those making “average sized” or “small” conrtributions. Administrative costs are substancially less for those making “large contributions.”
The secret administative benefit formula in addition to the constant fluctuation of the stock market for “private accounts’ payable benefits” is especially discriminatory for women.
In Chile from 1995 to 1998 the return on “privatization accounts” was: -2.5%; 3.5%; 4.7% and -1.1% respectively…”about 3%”
In Chile and in Argentina “retired middle class”
citizens merely keep working into their seventies because the income from their “private accounts” is too low and too fluctuating. This causes stress and extreme agitation at an age when a fixed income is a necessity.
The Dems are not required to present an alternative proposal to Bush’s madness. “If it’s not broke, don’t “fix” it!…if you do not like our SSA program, you can always move to Chile!
Do not be sucked in by another Rovian media stunt!
Here’s the study link by Professor John B. Williamson of Boston College:
http://www2.bc.edu/~jbw/No_Frames/GSA99FP.html
Vaya con Dios!
March 7th, 2005 at 5:39 pmHey media folks – remember – don’t ask Bush about his ss plan.He doesn’t like to debate himself.
The last thing republicans want to do is answer questions about their proposal.McConnell is no exception.
I don’t think republicans anticipated so many people would be paying attention on this one.This is one debate where they can’t do back to ‘ol reliable – bringing up 9/11.
March 7th, 2005 at 10:07 pmI’ve been claiming for years that the entire drop of interest rates for savings, from the Carter highs to today’s abyss, has been a plot to get our $$ into the stock market.
Now, they want our S.S. And our pensions.
Next up, a V.A.T. and/or a flat tax.
I’d be bold, too, if I had gotten away with 2 stolen elections.
March 7th, 2005 at 10:35 pmIt’s blatantly obvious this attempt to set up “private accounts” is really an attempt to repudiate the New Deal and bring America back to the Robber Baron days of the 1890’s, when it was “every man for himself and the Devil take the hind most”. A very ugly time, indeed.
Bush’s proposal to “privatize” Social Security does absolutely nothing to address the long-term solvency of the program, which is what these sphincters keep saying is the issue to begin with! Talk about “bait and switch”! This is the most dishonest bunch of politicians in the history of the United States, hands down.
I also have a question for those ying-yangs out there who repeat this “Ownership Society” blather incessantly – Do you also take “ownership” of all the debt that the Republicans have rung up over the past 25 years??? If not, why not?? Ownership also means acknowledging your liabilities, as well as your assets – you mindless morons!!!!
March 8th, 2005 at 11:45 amThe question that I have is this: Why aren’t Democrats chiding, taunting, ridiculing the president night and day to produce this plan he’s been selling for SIX YEARS now? Maybe they’re hoping he’ll cave, never release his plan, and leave the Congressional Republicans tied to the third rail, with a fat-ass diesel rounding the bend.
March 8th, 2005 at 12:57 pmAdult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.
adult
August 18th, 2005 at 2:02 pmpersonalsAdult personals – online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personalsadult personals sex dating
dating
servicesdating services – adult dating
service
adult
singersadult swingers sex swingers
sex
swingerssex swingers adult swingers swingers
club
swingers club
swingers club adult swingers
adult dating
serviceadult dating service adult
personals
sex
datingsex dating adult dating service
sex
datingsex dating adult personals
personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
datingadult sex dating adult personals
gay
datinggay dating lesbian dating
adult dating
onlineadult dating online adult personals
online
personalsonline personals adult personals
adult dating
serviceadult dating service adult
personals
BDSMBDSM BDSM personals
adult dating
personalsadult dating personals adult
personals
adult dating
adult dating service
adult dating
serviceadult dating service
adult dating
onlineadult dating online
personals adspersonals ads
adult personalsadult personals
personal adspersonal ads
adult personal adsadult personal ads
Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.
Los angeles lakers tickets Lakers Tickets at the staples center. Cheap Lakers Tickets said i could get cheap lakers lakers tickets Lakers Tickets from this ticket broker Cheap Lakers Tickets So now got my cheap la lakers tickets about to see the lakers kobe bryant in his lakers jersey Cheap Lakers Tickets i ended up geting my cheap lakers tickets at cheap nba tickets Lakers Tickets the los angeles lakers game was about to start when lakers news came Lakers Ticketswas the lakers trade rumor true? shaq gone Lakers Tickets I wanted to check lakers com to see if the los angeles lakers rumor was true Los Angeles Lakers Tickets lakers trade was really lakers kwame brown coming to shake lakers phil jackson hand and lakers official annoucement i saw the lakers offical site with the lakers logo at the top but i went to a ticket broker to buy my great lakers season seats at staples center in los angelesLakers Ticketsthere would be no NBA basketball without the los angeles lakersLos Angeles Lakers Tickets make sure you don’t leave the staples center without your lakers schedule Lakers Ticketsafter the game i went to buy rose bowl tickets Rose Bowl Tickets for the 2006 rose bowl Rose Bowl Ticketsat the pasadena rose bowl stadiumSuper Bowl Tickets then i got cheap super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets Super Bowl Tickets super bowl tickets USC Trojans Tickets usc trojans tickets rumble fish dvd Super Bowl Tickets super bowl tickets Rumble Fish DVD rumble fish blues brothers Blues Brothers DVD blues brothers dvd
August 18th, 2005 at 2:17 pmSwingers Lifestyle
NASCA (North American Swing Clubs
Association) defines Swinging as, "social and sexual intercourse with someone
other than your mate, boyfriend or girlfriend, excepting the traditional
one-on-one dating.
Swinging is not the same as swapping, because lots of swingers (men and women)
are still single, so no need to swap. A good definition might perhaps be "recreational
sex". In summary, swinging is for (mostly) heterosexual people who enjoy sex
for its own sake, as opposed to purely within one relationship. Sex as a hobby.
Some people said that swinging lifestyle started in United Kingdom ( UK ) and
later starting to gain acceptance by the rest of the world. Well, I am not
really sure how it get started but it is not easy to involved in swinging
lifestyle. A few important things: first, no one should swing unless they really
want to. No one should ever go into it if they are at all uncertain of their own
wishes, or of the strength of their emotional relationship with their partner.
Swinging can (and often does) strengthen couples’ attachment to one another. But
equally, it can and does wreck relationships too. If you can’t discuss it openly
between yourselves or if one partner keeps bringing it up you almost certainly
shouldn’t go there.
Swingers lifestyle is based upon communication more than any other factor.
Swinging couples have an ability to
talk openly about there feelings with one another and learning to do that must
precede any decision or discussion of entering the Lifestyle.
A good way to start the process with a spouse is to talk about sexual fantasies,
particularly those sexual fantasies that involve other people. Once you have
established that your fantasies can be more of a source of excitement than a
threat, it is much easier to begin talking in terms of bringing those fantasies
into the real world.
No matter how you start the communication, it is not generally a good idea to
simply blurt out, "Hey, do you want to
swing?". Most people who have been in a long term monogamous marriage are
going to be taken aback by that approach, and failure is almost assured. It is
best to establish the idea over a period of time rather than try to rush.
You can’t "swing" without your spouse’s knowledge and consent. That isn’t
swinging. You would be having an affair. Swinging requires two consenting adults
who are open to the idea of participating in the lifestyle together. Most
swinging couples are not going to have anything to do with someone who is
sneaking around on a spouse. Swingers
as a group are very proud of the fact that they are open and honest about their
sexuality. Cheating is considered to be the antithesis of everything that the
swinging lifestyle is about and besides, the swinging community is already
assailed by literally millions of solo males looking to get laid.
Your best bet is to work on the communication in your marriage and try talking
about the swingers lifestyle some more. Swingers as a group are very proud of
the fact that they are open and honest about their sexuality. Cheating is
considered to be the antithesis of everything that the swingers lifestyle is
about.
Remember, that swinging isn’t for every couple. If you can’t agree on it, maybe
it is not for you.
It is generally not a good idea to swing with friends, unless you met them
through swinging: even then, many swingers have a "one-hit" rule, so emotional
complications/attractions can’t arise.
When you do meet someone you think you might like, be frank about what you like
or don’t like, and demand the same from the person or people you meet. If you
don’t like them for any reason, just politely turn them down. If YOU get turned
down, don’t be offended.. You will be just what someone, somewhere, is looking
for. This is ALL about people’s right to do absolutely what they like, and
nothing they don’t like.
Lastly, swingers must be very health conscious. Always practice safe sex and
make sure yourself is disease free. Most swingers say they always practice it,
but in reality, most probably don’t. So there is always some kind of health
risk, however careful you are (condoms are no protection against crabs, for
instance). It is for you to make your own judgement. But no-one will ever
complain if you choose to be super-careful. And it is a fact that
sexually-transmitted diseases are far more common among teenagers than among
swingers.
Welcome to Swingers Lifestyle …
Browse and post free Swingers Ads
October 14th, 2006 at 2:39 am