There are an awful lot of lies being told by the Bush administration and its allies in their battle to dismantle Social Security through privatization, but perhaps the biggest lie of all is “$11 trillion dollars.” That’s the “unfunded obligation” President Bush tells us Social Security will supposedly accrue if nothing is done to fix it:
You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act. And that’s an issue. That’s trillion with a “T.”
It’s nice to know the president is keeping up on his spelling, but he needs to do a little more work on his math. For according to the ever useful FactCheck.org, that mind-boggling number is calculated using the Social Security Administration’s new “infinite-horizon model,” which attempts to project revenue and obligations not 75 years into the future (as has been the standard model,) or even 100 years, but… well… forever.
Sound a little silly? Well the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan group with the really boring job of setting the standards of practice for US actuaries, points out that even 75-year projections are filled with uncertainty, but an infinite projection… well that’s basically worthless. In a letter sent to the Social Security Advisory Board, the Academy is unequivocal:
The new measures of the unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.
But then, that’s the whole point of the infinite-horizon projection isn’t it… to mislead Americans by conjuring up a really humongous number in order to scare us into supporting a bogus “reform” package? But how many Americans would take this number seriously if they understood, as NPR reported today, that the projection is based on the truly laughable assumption that the retirement age will stay at 67, while average life expectancy peaks at 150 by the year 2200!
150? Forget about Social Security’s unfunded obligations… how are we going to pay for all the court-ordered feeding tubes we’ll presumably need to sustain a nation of sesquicentenarians?
It isnt the feeding tubes you need to worry about, it is real people living longer due to medical discovery versus people having smaller families, due to family planning as well as abortion. The traIN has TO CRASH. Now you libs are going to throw rocks at this again but eventually we will have 1 to 1 problems. That means 1 person working to support 1 retired. Before you say I am nuts or crazy, tell me an alternative plan. Not a bandaid that wil get us by until the year 20XX but a real fix. Give me a real idea and I will no longer back the Bush plan. remember I am not interested in the liberal bandaid that works till 20XX but a permanant repair that will put SS on a permanant road for my great grandkids…..
Chuck, your argument assumes that productivity is static, which is not so. For most the first 50,000 years of human habitation on this continent, feeding the tribe required nearly full-time effort by essentially every able-bodied member of the tribe, and they didn’t have a retirement plan. Pretty much a 1:1 ratio. Today, each agricultural worker feeds several dozen people, freeing up 97% of our population to work in non-food-production occupations. If it takes only 3 people to feed 100 people, then 1 worker per retiree does not necessarily have to spell disaster for either the worker or the retiree. The productivity of the future economy might easily absorb an increased number of retirees relative to workers. The comparison often is made of the much higher ratio of workers to retirees in 1935 but what is omitted is that today’s per-worker output is vastly higher than what the economy produced in 1935. When you factor productivity into the equation, the declining worker-retiree ratio is far less threatening and the future outlook for Social Security looks far less bleak.
It will take forever for Social Security to go $11 trillion in debt, but Dubya’s economic policies can do it in less than 20 years. From this perspective, Social Security looks like a damn good deal.
Don, you are trying to play a little shell game, not what I asked for, I dont want pie in the sky, give a real plan. I know that evolution indicates we looked like my pet monkeys…not my question. Give me a PLAN to make SS viable through 20XX.
Chuck@4-
It’s futile asking idiots like Don for a viable plan. All they know is that if Bush is for it, they are against it…with no viable alternative.
These LEFTISTS like Don have built their power base on STUPID PEOPLE. Using fear-mongering and venom, they paralyze average citizens with fear of lying in the gutter destitute, with no medical care & no food or shelter.
These LEFTISTS then convince these poor bastards that the solution is to become DEPENDENT on them, the LEFTISTS. I’ve heard people thank the government for their SS checks when IT’S THEIR OWN DAMN MONEY!
Don is arrogant and quite pathetic. His lifelong dependency on government and failure to make it in the private sector has mortally imbittered him. Everyone needs to be as STUPID and dependent on the government as Don.
Chuck..you will never get viable solutions from Don and his ilk…especially anything that empowers people.
Don is like the pimp who keeps his whores high on crack and buys ’em a used dress every once in awhile. The LEFTIST deck of cards is falling down all around Don. WHY?
“People everywhere just wanna be free!” Free from government dependency and a$$holes like Don.
Don,
How in the hell can you equate hunting and gathering to modern finance. It is apples and oranges. If you really believe this, I have a bridge I would like you to finance for me on a very long term loan. And yes, I am angry, I vote and I am certainly going to get royally screwed by Social Security. I have worked since I was 13, will pay into it my whole life and likely never see a dime.
It is simple really so you should be able to understand it. Me paying into it will not support a 1 to 1 ratio…. How difficult is that to understand. GET YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY FUCKING WALLET.
Mr. Cynical @5 – Shhhhhhhh, Be very, very careful. The truch is very dangerous. It causes some people here to FREAK OUT. Is there a reason why any economy needs to be 40-50% government-based? Other than political?
idiot, so that is why you are so against Don, you think he was the one running your mom and family?
Necessary reading before deciding how to fix social security:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/myersorl.html
Again… Let’s have Bush give a plan first before the harping on teh Democrats for not having a plan. Bush is the one running around like Chicken Little with a bunch of made up numbers. He is using BS to mislead people -hmmm, a pattern? – and you guys have the gaul to talk about the TRUTH?
And anyway, if you were honestly interested in the effects of aging on the economy shouldn’t we be looking to fix Medicare which faces a MUCH bigger crisis MUCH sooner? Nah, that would not accomplish the conservative shell game of attempting to destroy SS.
But for all this I will indulge you here just the same. I suppose you are fundamentally opposed to eliminating the tax break on SS for those making over $90,000? That solves your problem right there. It does not further your ideology, but it solves the problem. Which is more important?
Yes, the retirement age will have to be increased along with life expectation, also, small adjustments as necessary, make income taxable up to $175000, BOOM!, no more problem.
If anyone is playing a shell game, its bush and the repubs.
Did anyone notice that Medicare is insolvent far quicker (2020) than SS? And the only solution Bush and the GOP offer for that is cutting Medicare (bye bye Terri Schiavo).
Private accounts, by Bush’s own admission, don’t solve the solvency issue. They make it worse. Nearly every suggestion offered by the GOP makes the SS issues worse for the next 50-75 years. Instead, let’s focus on the facts.
SS is solvent until 2041, and after that it can pay for 75-80% of its benefits, without a single change. Raising the SS wage cap from $90,000 to $110,000 would solve at least 45% of the SS shortfall. Raising the retirement age 1 or 2 years would solve the rest. There you go Chuck. That’s all we need to do.
Then we can focus on real problems, like Medicare.
diggindude @ 10 The Texas Taco has no thoughts of his own, just a simple warmongerer, bankrupter, climb on the ‘hot horse’ type of Texan. Nothing more, nothing less, a Texas Two Stepper that doesn’t have the brain cells to remember where he stepped last time. Most Neocons are the same…..Dittoheads….like Delay and First…..nothing original, just milking the Cow for all they can
Kind oif like idiot, xmasghoul, anoninmyass, etc here. Nothing original, just dittoheads to the max
Chuck @ 1
A 1 to 1 ratio doesn’t bother me. It means that everybody pays their own way through SS tax. So SS taxes have to be high enough so that, after interest, there will be a big enough pot to stretch out to the average age at death. This probably means that we have to adjust tax rates and increase retirement age a little bit. A later retirement age is reasonable considering the huge gains over the last 100 years in the length of the healthy, active part of the lifespan.
So, the only real problem for SS is a temporary cash shortfall until we get to the point where each person contributes about what they take from the system. Here is an idea: lets infuse a couple hundred billion dollars into SS. Won’t that fix the temporary shortfall? Oh. . . wait. . . we spent that already blowing up buildings and killing people. Oops!
Hugs and kisses!
I thought thats what bush wanted? LOL!
Isnt a private account, a 1:1 affair?
So, if we will get there “eventually”, why rush it just to give wall street a piece of the pie?
Leave it to dumbass bush, to expose himself!
He really has “earned” the name “gwdummy”!!
My apologies to all for Mr. C’s outburst above. The doctors tell me these kinds of episodes are merely autonomic responses resulting from an intact brainstem—political twitching, if you will. They should not be confused with conscious thought, as the CAT scans, MRIs, PET scans, and a careful look in his ears with a flashlight show an absence of all but loosely floating, uncompacted cerebral cortex in his head.
We are now agonizing over removing his feeding tube (a plasma TV permanently tuned to Fox). We even had the cable man ready to snip the wire, but the town council passed a last minute ordinance that prevents such action so long as a patient can still foam at the mouth and operate the Caps Lock key.
Hugs and kisses!
Why don’t we talk about the $12 million overrun by DSHS? We have more control over that than we do something like Social Security.
Lets talk about the 9 billion, lost to cheney’s company in iraq.
Is he going to get it back?
Why don’t we talk about the $12 million overrun by DSHS? We have more control over that than we do something like Social Security.
Finally, something we agree on :) It seems that DSHS (and like) agencies around the country are having trouble staying on budget and on task. We should actually look into that.
jcricket@12
You didnt pay much attention in math class did you? SS is not solvent till 2042. There is no trust fund. Wake the hell up and join the rest of the class here in the real world.
Won’t that fix the temporary shortfall?>>>>
There is no temporary shortfall, it is going to be an ongoing shortfall for ever and ever until the workers that support the system throw down their spades and say screw the system…we cannot afford to work any more.
swatter@17
Goldy and Don says no waste exists there. They are understaffed and it is amazing we get the bargain we get out of DSHS. Thats what Goldy and Don say….
Mrs @ 14
Are you kidding me? 1 to 1 means that I will be paying over $800 dollars a month so someone else can drive a Winnebago. Do you really think this is sound fiscal policy? Have you ever held a private sector job? Do you understand basic supply and demand? It is un sustainable. How is keeping more of what you EARNED a problem for liberals?
It really boils down to this, I beleive that I can take care of my money better than you and you think the government should redistibute it to someone else. Bottom line. They have a name for that and it is called Socialism. Try political science 101, then stop by an economics class while you are on campus. They may enlighten you to the following; ideology, logic and basic macro economics. The account is not sustainable, fix it now.
Evidently, nobody read the link.
Mr. Chuck @ 21
If your goal is to fix the SS system in the least radical way then there IS a temporary cash shortfall. A modest investment of cash NOW is needed to generate interest income that will keep the system solvent 40+ years from now. This is elementary accounting. But, for really long-term solvency, we will probably have to raise the retirement age as well. Given the tremendous strides in health and well-being, this seems perfectly reasonable and socially acceptable. Any residual shortfall (or surplus) can be covered by raising (lowering) SS taxes.
In the end, my contributions to SS along with my accrued interest should about equal the cash I take from the system.
The fundamental flaw with Mr. Bush’s plan is that SS is being redefined from an INSURANCE program to a RETIREMENT PLAN. An insurance program should be there for the most vulnerable members of our society, and those whose retirement plans fail. It is far less costly to society to provide a benefit to these people than to have hoards of hungry, homeless, unhealthy people doing whatever they need to do to eat and have shelter. This aspect of SS cannot really go away. There will always need to be a zero-risk insurance component to SS.
Do you SERIOUSLY want to add a government-imposed “personal/private” retirement plan on top of that???? Doesn’t this just add government control over my right to develop my own retirement strategy? I already have my TIAA/CREF plan and my own “private/personal” investment plan on top of that. No, thank you, I’ll pass on giving the Feds any more control over my retirement strategy.
Geeez. . . call me a Libertarian, but ever since Reagan, Republicans have become so invested in big government.
Hugs and kisses!
Mrs. Cynical@24
We have been doing nothing but “modest cash boosts” for some time now and it isnt working. We have raised the SS tax several times, raised retirement age, and are talking about doing so again. It wont take it to another 40 years you know it as well as I it is smoke in the mirror! Even if it did, what about after the 40 years? Fuck the grandkids huh? Just so you can prop your feet up! 40 years is nothing in the scheme of things. SS is simular to the Post Office, it needs fixed, not a band aid but a triple or quadruple bypass!
Ya chuck, those guys 40 years ago were bastards not to “fix” s.s. for you, oh wait a minute, if they “HAD” done that, it would all be gone by now, like gwdummy is proposing.
Shit, we dont want that do we?
LOL!
You didnt pay much attention in math class did you? SS is not solvent till 2042. There is no trust fund. Wake the hell up and join the rest of the class here in the real world.
Yes, there is a trust fund. It exists in the form of government bonds, which are the safest instrument of investment there is. If the government defaults on their government bonds, the entire economy will also be destroyed, making social security the least of our issues.
If you believe there is no trust fund, then I suggest you read the trustees report again. They disagree with you.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne.....l_security
And, more importantly, every single option you offer makes SS more insolvent, not less. So excuse me if I don’t want to take math lessons from you.
Diggindude@27
Exactly why we need private accounts
Oh and those bonds are currently earing 6-7% if i remember correctly.
The next thing to consider, this influx that bush needs to jumpstart this new program, is to be “BORROWED”
WOW!!
So , along with overcoming the price of inflation, we will have to have our private investments, pay for huge management fees, AND overcome the interest,(which looks like its going up to me!!) before it gains this 7% that they claim private accounts will earn.
So, it looks to me, like private accounts with borrowed money is silly.
A no brainer.
Course, we DID have 1.6 trillion dollars in a surplus fund to invest in the future of social security 5 years ago, but dumbass gwdummy gave it away to those that got him appointed as “resident” in the white house.
Course, we DID have 1.6 trillion dollars in a surplus fund to invest in the future of social security 5 years ago, but dumbass gwdummy gave it away to those that got him appointed as “resident” in the white house.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only reason that we had that was Clinton taxed us to death and rode the economy to the ground, it isnt Bushes fault completely.
chuck @ 29
we call this sarcasm.
It comes natural to east coasters. we’re “naturally” cynical.
OK
Fault?
hahaha
You’re blaming clinton for having enough money to “repair” s.s., and exhonerating bush for losing it?
OMFG!!
I cant make you see anything, but i suggest you at least open your mind a little.
And, i could show it to you, but the economy was not “in the ground” until well after bush got hold of it.
Alot of you liberal puppets are forgetting something that Clinton tried to do, FIX SOCIAL SECURITY!!! Sean Hannity showed the video of Clinton talking about how SS needed fixing, this was just a few years before Bush took over. Hilarious how how many faces liberals have, well if the R’s are for it I’m against it, well now that they are against it I’m for it.
Some of you also need to do your homework, Your Dem god Roosevelt wanted to tweak SS by turning it into investment accounts…isn’t that what Bush is working toward?…
No, bush is moving towards “elimination” of s.s.
He wants to get rid of it.
S.s. was an issue since it started.
You really need to read this interview:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/myersorl.html
Has he said that he was going to get rid of SS?, no he just said it will take on a new form, one that over-reaching Senators can’t dip into.
Diggindude@35
You have problems with the cocept of reality, the economy went down the crapper during the last 2 years of clinton.
chuck@39
really?
ok, but what about this?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405010002
And what about this?
http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/
Oops!!
Another bush lie! Go figure!
adriel@38
How can you believe anything he says?
Fk, he lies all the time.
Look at what it really means, not what that fkr says.
Mr. Chuck @ 26.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, but SS IS working right now. You are confusing “working now” with long term projections for SS. I agree with you completely that SS “needs fixed” (you must be from Pennsylvania!) for the long run. One fix is to radically overhaul SS and turn it into a very different program—a government regulated retirement plan. The other way is to infuse money into the system now and/or gradually increase retirement age and adjust withholdings.
Social security “needs fixed” not because it is broken, but because we have gradually moved toward a zero population growth society. This means that eventually we will all have to contribute to SS what we will expect to take from it. No smoke and mirrors here, just elementary accounting.
Unfortunately, Bush has not provided details and numbers for his plan, so it is impossible for you and me to evaluate the fiscal projections. I judge it negatively because (1) I appreciate the insurance value of the existing SS system for myself and society, and (2) I want full control over my own retirement plan.
Hugs and Kisses!
Chuck @ 26
Do you know WHY it’s “not working?” Because every President since 1983 has used the money for annual budgets, rather than satisfying the debt obligations. Clinton is the ONLY President to have done what the bill intended–use a receipts surplus to reduce our obligation as time went on. He did that with his last two budgets, paying a couple hundred billion towards retiring the debt.
Once Bush got on the scene, that ended. He’s spent something close to a TRILLION of the money intended for SS, on things like tax cuts and Iraq. And now what Bush is telling us is that we need to find a way not to pay that money back. Fuck him and his disingenuous bullshit. He’s the worst offender, and he’s acting like he’s saving something.
Adriel @ 36
Clinton’s proposals were NOTHING like Bush’s. Clinton advocated using the SS reserves themselves, as investments into the private market, in order to increase return and offset revenue forecasts. He never, EVER suggested a carve-out plan of private individual accounts and coincident benefit cuts.
Also, FDR never suggested what you claim, either.
Thanks tj, at least there are some voices of reason here.
thanks dd @ 44.
Oh, also I found it interesting that the trustees reported yesterday that there’s been no movement in the status of the fund since their last report. In 2000 they claimed it would last until 2042, now five years later it will last until 2041.
“Clinton’s proposals were NOTHING like Bush’s. Clinton advocated using the SS reserves themselves, as investments into the private market, in order to increase return and offset revenue forecasts. He never, EVER suggested a carve-out plan of private individual accounts and coincident benefit cuts.”
But he did say that it needed fixed and so did FDR but most Liberals on here are saying it is fine which is BULLSHIT!
“FDR never suggested what you claim, either.”
Try some research you’ll find it, I have faith in you.
adriel @46
Who is saying it’s fine? No one I have encountered here. Who specifically are you referring to? I assume by your post you’re conceding that what you said wasn’t correct.
As for FDR, I HAVE done the research. Apparently you haven’t.
gwdummy said it was going broke in 1988.
What a dumbass he was right?
well, here he is telling you the same chicken little story all over again, and you sit up and believe it!
How stupid is that?
It was fixed back then with a few tweaks, and now it needs more.
For 70 years of operation, I’d say thats a pretty good record.
If nothing was done at all to s.s., nothing at all, it would pay out 75% of what its supposed to in 2052, and continue that for many years.
This is all projected from a flat economy.
If we have exceptional growth, all those numbers will change for the better.
To cry wolf over it, is at best innaccurate, and at worst(and this is where bush is) an outright lie!
Did you even take the time to read what the former director of s.s. said in that interview i posted? I bet not.
Chuck @ 4
You want a plan? Okay, here’s my plan: Do nothing about Social Security until Democrats are in power again, because we dare not entrust Social Security reform to Republicans.
Oh, and after inflation is added in, that 75%, is more than what retirees get today.
don @ 49
hehe!
Nice.
Cynical @ 6
I have to admit I do admire how much colorful name-calling you manage to pack into three short paragraphs. I’ll bet your bedroom sessions with Mrs. Cynical are equally imaginative and creative. We should ask Mrs. C about that sometime.
AV @ 6
“I have worked since I was 13, will pay into it my whole life and likely never see a dime.”
Last I heard that particular bridge is no longer for sale and I believe you’re the guy who bought it.
“I am angry”
Try taking an anger management class. It doesn’t work, but it’ll keep you out of the taverns and off the streets for a few hours.
jpgee @ 8
No, they come after me because I bash them right back. I’m taking the bullet for the rest of you, so to speak.
Mrs. C @ 16
I’ve suspected all along that someone (Cheesy Chuckie?) had wired Mr. C with electrodes. Now we know. The Cable Guy did it.
jrcricket @ 19
When you look into it, I think you’ll find it’s caused by the runaway medical costs produced by our free-enterprise health care system.
Of course, free enterprise works only when there’s competition, and what is fundamentally missing from our health care system is, of course, competition.
AV @ 23
Jus who do you think YOU are kidding? Please explain how anyone with an income of $800 a month can make payments on a Winnebago. If you live in Seattle, that doesn’t even pay the rent.
adriel @ 46
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....005672.php
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles–first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.” -FDR
Cheesy Chuckie @ 26
So Chuckie, your plan to fix Social Security is getting rid of it. Good thing you didn’t go to medical school, because you euthanize people with the flu. Let’s see if we can put your genius to a constructive use. The world is going to run out of oil in about 30 years. Chuckie’s solution: EVERYBODY STOP DRIVING AND TURN OFF THE HEAT IN THE HOMES RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
I was right? Torridjoe was wrong?
Diggin @ 34
What mind? Cheesy Chuckie doesn’t have a mind to open. All you can do with him is yank out his feeding tube.
adriel @ 61
Did you fail to read your own quote? What part of that leads you to believe FDR favored carve-out private accounts??
“Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.”
“ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
Adriel @ 61,
It looks to me like TorridJoe properly claims that you misinterpret FDR (i.e. you are parroting Brit Hume’s line).
But, if it makes you feel better, Mamma C will declare you the winner of the pissing contest. Now, put your penis back into you pants where it belongs and go find something useful to do while the adults debate the issues.
Hugs and kisses!
Sure as hell doesn’t represent our current system you tell me what he meant.
adriel @ 64
what was ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans, was the old-age pension at the start of SS, for those too old to earn enough money before retirement. The “second” item you quote, refers to the permanent insurance system we have now. The “third” item was a voluntary add-on program, which he did not push and was never implemented.
Adriel @ 61
I was right? Torridjoe was wrong?
Precisely the opposite.
so was alot of flowery words for a program that is nothing but the opposite? oh guess I should have read between the lines *rolls eyes*
adriel @ 69
no, just reading the actual lines would have sufficed.
It took the stock market crash of 1929 to get many voters to understand the ” Opportunity Costs “of Conservative economics. It may take a similar(or worse) disaster to get today’s Republican voter’s attention. The rule is simple: If you do not make over $250,000 a year, you have no business voting Republican.
Don,
Once again you fail to address the issue and resort to personal attacks, the true sign of a weak mind. Concentrate and take your ritalin. The SS system is not deisnged to be the only source of retirement. It is not my problem if someone failed to plan, it isnt my problem and I truly dont give a shit. It is my money, again, KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OUT OF MY WALLET. IT IS MY MONEY, I WORKED HARD FOR IT. If you cant afford to live in Seattle, move stupid.
headless lucy @ 71
I don’t know why you can’t understand that not everyone wants to be a socialist lemming, I am just not built that way even though I don’t make $250,000+ a year. The Democrats just don’t support a large number of the publics views and ethical standing, plain and simple.
AV @ 72
No, it isn’t altogether your money. As a member of this society, and one who benefits from it, you have an obligation to help support the entire society’s needs, not just your personal gratification. Your opportunity to earn that money wouldn’t exist without taxpayer investments in education, infrastructure that makes commerce possible, and police/laws/courts that create and protect private property rights, among other things. Stop being such a self-centered asshole and join the human race.
Or, alternatively, go live on a deserted island. But don’t expect to live in this society, and take its benefits, while giving nothing back.
I pay taxes on nearly everything I do. B&O, sales, gas, liqour, property, every single purchase I make (and I make many) goes to support the very infastrucutre you speak of. I went to a private college and took loans to do it. Tax me more, tax me more says Don I cant make a living. Again, you throw up a smokescreen, call names and believe it is a valid arguement. It is my money, FUCK YOU for wanting more of it, I already work until May of every year to pay local, state and federal taxes. You expect to maintain a lifestlye by someone elese hard work you communist piece of shit. “you cant live in seattle for $800”. I DONT CARE, MOVE THEN. Your very arguments premise is false, your logic invalid and your elitist entitlement attitude will be the downfall of Democrats in America.
Don Says:
“No, it isn’t altogether your money”
Typical liberal, socialist propaganda. Do you have a picture of Lenin at your house Don, you certainly should. I earned it, I worked hard for it, not you, not the government and not grandma and grandpa cahshing MY check at the casino.
angryvoter @ 76
You would be doing parents here with college ready kids a big favor and save them some valuable time by telling them which private college you attended.
Does someone making a living, paying a lot of taxes and creating jobs for others bother you? Again, you jackasses point fingers call names and offer no useful soloutions or real crituque of the situation. “Poopy head, Poopy head you are a poopy head”… is all you have. Pathetic bastards.
RDC@77
Are you suggesting the school may owe him a refund?
Argue the merits, you are not on the playground.
The Blood of Terri Schiavo will be on your hands! This is a brutal ending to a wonderful womans life. Many Republicans in power have tried to spare this tragic ending, and even criminals are allowed more justice than Terri is. I weep for the justice that has been awarded her. My mother Died of Lou Gehrig’s Disease! I was by her side feeding her by tube till her end! I know she was there until her last breath, even though she could not communicate! I spent the time with my mother that Terri’s parents have spent. I suspect no other people including her husband have spent the time by her side.
If a Parent is willing to take on the prolonged care of a loved child, as Terri’s parents both are, there is no plausable reason for this other than a brutal killing. Once again a prime example of liberal justice. And you all claim we are Hitler like. He was the one who decided only the fit should live. Your libralism and willingness to kill this wonderful soul Terri, is a fitting example to the world. Enjoy watching her last days, as her soul will endure, and her blood is on your hands. Amen!
Don@54
We come after you because you talk through a paper ass…
AV @ 76
Hey, Lone Ranger, so do the rest of us. BTW I didn’t have the privilege of going to a private college.
AV @ 78
Hey, Lone Ranger, you’re not the only person who makes a living, pays a lot of taxes, and creates jobs for others.
AV @ 80
I argued the merits @ #2 and three posts later you came back with an offer to sell me a bridge, poor-little-me whining, and profanity. If you want a discussion of merits, go back and read #2, you sanctimonious asshole.
GS @ 81
The Supreme Court turned down the parents’ appeal today. Are we to believe that’s because the Supreme Court is dominated by liberal judges? Some of the judges turning down their appeal look pretty damn Republican to me.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 82
Speaking of asses, if tarantulas had tapeworms, you’d be the segment the worm shits out of.
GS@81. Terri ruined her own life, wanted to drop 200 pounds from her 5ft 4 in. frame. So, she went the finger down throat bulimic route, deprived herself of food, lived on liguids and iced tea, emancipated herself, screwed up her potasium level and had a stroke. It is uncanny that NOW everyone wants to tube feed her. Too little, too late.
Is that treu to life story what you call….”once again a prime example of liberal justice.” My mom used to say, “you make your bed, you lie in it. There is such a thing as neurosis to blame instead of liberals and Terri’s husband. Terri spelled out her own fate, obviously having an unconcious death wish long ago or she would not have been trying to starve herself to death then. By twist of fate, the Republicans have their own wish going and think they know what is best. BULLSHIT!
Chee@89
Next time you go outside and forget your coat, get pnumonia for your effort, Ill be on the sidelines saying DIE BASTARD you got yourself into this!
after he has pneumonia for 15 years, im sure he’ll welcome that, right CHEE?
I still cant post anything at scrounge politics, they only let in posts from ass kissers.
I refuse to kiss ass, just to have the right to insult somebody.
RG@82.RE: “The Blood of Terri Schiavo will be on your hands!” Sound like something a Crusader from the Dark Ages would say. I regret to have to awaken you from your slumber but bloggers, republican or liberal did not have a vote in the matter. Your preaching to an absent choir.
diggindude@15. There is such a thing as ADULTS being responsible for your actions, but of course you wouldn’t understand that.
chee@94
Come again?
Diggindude…sorry, meant my post @ 94 for CHUCKY CHEESE @ 90.
diggindude@91. After 15 years with Die You Bastard Chuck, death would be a welcome.
Kinda felt like you were cheesin ME!
no prob.
diggindude@98. :-) I have to go now and wash the blood of my hands. Manna.
diggindude. I have erred on spelling …hows this? Man-Yawn-A.
Don @ 84
It wasnt a privledge, I borrowed money and paid for it. Now I pay it back. It was hard work, you ought to give it a try sometime. Typical liberal, assume I am a silver spoon trust fund baby. Well I got news for ya, my dad worked in the woods for 37 years. I did 5 years in the army to help pay for it and borrowed the rest. All to better myself, so I wouldnt have to rely on the disapointing reality of broken promises regarding social security.
Hey angryvoter… why so angry? Apparently you’ve done well for yourself. You should be quite pleased, damned proud, and I would hope, at least a little bit happy. Isn’t America a great place? A land of opportunity?
I once heard George McGovern tell a story about his father, who was a Methodist minister (and a conservative Republican.) One day his father was greeting parishioners after services, asking them how they were doing, when one man started complaining about how high his tax bill was that year. To which the Reverend McGovern replied that he should thank God for having such a profitable year.
God or no God… don’t you feel a little bit thankful? Like I said… great country.
DIGGINDUDE
IF YOU CANT POST ON S/P JUST WHISTLE SO THEY KNOW WHICH END TO START ON
Scrounge politics only knows one thing, how to delete opposing views.
That’s a joke right?
I have now framed and asked the SAME question over a dozen times:
We are no longer talking party preference here kiddo.
No longer talking Terri or conservative or liberal or religion or husband rights or states rights or judicial activism or the Constitution.
We have boiled this discussion down to one single question… one which you refuse to answer.
Are you coming down on the side of LIFE or DEATH – which culture do you want to be associated with?
LIFE or DEATH?
Are you totally incapable of giving a one word answer?
PICK ONE… ONE LITTLE WORD… THAT DEFINES THE PHILOSOPHY GUIDING *YOUR* EXISTENCE …
LIFE or DEATH?
Choose.
Comment by anonymous
Sorry kiddo, NO ONE agrees with you…or disagrees with you… YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO TAKE A STAND.
We are no longer talking party preference here kiddo.
No longer talking Terri or conservative or liberal or religion or husband rights or states rights or judicial activism or the Constitution.
We have boiled this discussion down to one single question… one which you refuse to answer.
Are you coming down on the side of LIFE or DEATH – which culture do you want to be associated with?
LIFE or DEATH?
Comment by anonymous
Words, words, words, blah, blah, blah, still saying nothing.
The corner you’ve painted is REFUSING to answer a simple damned question.
A simple one word question… LIFE or DEATH??
WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO ANSWER IT?
See duuuuuuude your problem is this…
If you are such a COWARD that you can’t even call something by its name, you can’t even begin to discuss it honestly.
So come on duuuuuuude, we’re all waiting….
Define your the philosophy of your existance….
LIFE
or
DEATH?
We are no longer talking party preference here kiddo.
No longer talking Terri or conservative or liberal or religion or husband rights or states rights or judicial activism or the Constitution.
We have boiled this discussion down to one single question… one which you refuse to answer.
Are you coming down on the side of LIFE or DEATH – which culture do you want to be associated with?
LIFE or DEATH?
Comment by anonymous
You do realize, don’t you duuuuude that even your liberal pals are sitting at their screens laughing at you:
When you refuse to answer, as you are so studiously avoiding doing, you look like a complete FOOL and/or 2yr old trying to deny reality.
If you answer LIFE you will be humiliated by exposing your hypocrisy of pandering in the litterbox of your liberal pals.
OR
If you answer DEATH even you won’t be able to run from the repugnancy of your own beliefs.
Quite the nice corner you’ve painted yourself into.
Please turn around so we don’t have to see your ugly yellow streak.
Comment by anonymous
We are no longer talking party preference here kiddo.
No longer talking Terri or conservative or liberal or religion or husband rights or states rights or judicial activism or the Constitution.
We have boiled this discussion down to one single question… one which you refuse to answer.
Are you coming down on the side of LIFE or DEATH – which culture do you want to be associated with?
LIFE or DEATH?
And remember… not answering is an answer and reveals much about what you are… or aren’t.
Comment by anonymous
Goldy and I agree on something, this is a great country.
Diggindude@91
Yes but we wont give him an oxygen tent or any other means of therapy, nor will we give him any MRI scans or check see if he can feed himself when he gets too weak to move….
AV @ 101
I have two simple questions for you:
Why do you assume the rest of us didn’t work just as hard and struggle just as much as you did?
What promise to you has Social Security ever broken?
Simpletons @ 101 & 107
This isn’t about choosing life or death. Who wouldn’t bring Terri back if we could? There is no life to choose. Keeping the feeding tube connected is the same thing as feeding a lump of her flesh in a petrie dish. That’s not keeping her alive, it’s just keeping some cells alive. Terri died years ago. The fact part of her body is alive doesn’t mean she’s alive.
A: It is none of my business how hard you work, I presume nothing. If you did, good for you, if you didnt you should try it.
B: I was born in 1971 and I will at best, see less than 60% of what I paid in. That is according to Bill Clinttons trustees report.
Don@109
Then lets do an MRI to put it to rest…A SIMPLE TEST
Don@109
And yes it is about choosing life over death…
CHUCK @112. Comment by Chuck-3/25/05 @ 2:49 pm. Accept reality. Here it is AGAIN, Terri has an “obstacle” implanted in her brain since 1990, therefore, making an MRI a problem plus damaged part area of brain has filled with water. To date, reinserting the tube now hydration has set in thus far is dangerous and unfeasible; she would be worse off than before. It is acceptable practice to remove feding tubes even it not acceptable to Chuck and all the Johnny- Be-Gooders and Do-Righters. Give it a rest!
BULLY BUSH. Bush tried to bully the judicial branch by interjecting his idea of law (that does not exist) into a precise Federal Law. Bush is at odds with the judicuary system cause they closed the door to the Whute House, not wanting to be legal activists. The claims that their loss is govennment murder sure takes the heat off Terri’s husband. Terry is now on morphine. Terry will be only a memory as Congress returns to the job they should have been doing all along.