What Ruy Teixeira doesn’t understand is that Gallup is like an empire in the polling industry. When they act, they create their own realities, something Ruy and the others in the “reality-based” community don’t grasp. So if Gallup says that party id shifted in the past week from +9 Republican to +1 Democrat, by its very nature it must be true.
Dear President Bush:
I recently wrote to you considering your social security phase-out plans. In doing some additional research, I came across a paradox that I wanted to share with you in hopes you might change your mind.
Your plan to create “personal” private accounts within Social Security is heralded as a way to “save” the program from projected funding shortfalls. But in reading about the program, those projections are based on pessimistic ideas about what growth in the U.S. would look like. Likewise, your accounts would generate a 7 – 10% return annually, based on optimistic projecctions of US returns over time. But some economists, who are clearly smarter than either of us on this topic, have said that if the rosy scenario turns out to be true, there won’t be a shortfall in Social Security at all. But then that would mean that if the pessimists are right on the Social Security projections, the stock market wouldn’t make your 7 – 10% annual return, either.
So, really, private accounts won’t make any difference at all in fixing the projected funding shortfalls in Social Security. Which makes me think this isn’t all that good of an idea, and that it won’t really help the average person at all.
Therefore, I have to ask you once again to stop pushing an agenda that clearly won’t help the citizens of this country, and, in fact, will do far more harm than doing nothing.
Thank you for your time.
Chris
Dear President Bush:
Recently, there has been discussion of creating “personal”/”private” accounts within Social Security in order to ensure I can fund a respectable environment. However, I already have two personal accounts that I manage for retirement. One is my Roth IRA; the other is my 401K.
Just so you know, I turn twenty-six this year. In your media appearances, you have repeatedly implored the creation of these accounts on my behalf, indicating how this will “save” Social Security for my genreation. I would request that you cease and desist from this, as my generation’s fortunes are already significantly tied to the movements of the stock market. From finding jobs to our existing private retirement accounts, so much of how we do financially depends on Wall Street.
We view Social Security as what is likely to be the only guaranteed money that is not subject to these whims. So, please, stop pressing for yet another private account that will only further complicate our lives while making us less secure.
Respectfully Yours,
Christopher M. Dymek
This clip disturbs me in a very fundamental way. The inherent implication here is that what Our President Bush (OPB) is inherently above reproach (and certainly above politics). The media are simply expected to fall in line with whatever term of the week the OPB decides to use to describe something, without question. Otherwise, they’re being pejorative.
Watch out, I hear OPB will next be announcing that the sky is red.
Seriously, this nonsense must stop. If anyone has any examples of backbone among the media, please drop me a line.
Stories such as this one captured by Josh Marshall demonstrate clearly how Democratic Party leaders don’t “get it”. By waiting to take a stand, you cede control of the debate, and likewise the outcome, to the other side. If you have a viewpoint, stand tall and speak it! And if you don’t, find one before the debate begins. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, and at the same time, you gain leverage.
Really, this reminds me of a tidbit my boss told me in regards to a few personnel changes on a project I’m helping manage. His words of advice were to define the roles BEFORE the others became involved, as this would guarantee me more control over the process. I see control of the political discourse as no different.
After all, it’s not as though the Republicans have been ceding control while awaiting a specific plan. They’ve been prepping the waters for years on this topic.
I have always felt that those who label themselves pro-life do so in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I simply don’t grasp how you can argue you are for the life of a number of cells, which often do not constitute some viable outside the womb (not yet, anyway), yet be pro the death and endagerment of grown women who would now be subject to far more risky and dangerous methods of birth control.
The confusion that is often intentionally made from the pro-life side of the debate is that those who are not pro-life are pro-death. But it’s not as if those who support the lives of actual adult women are any less pro-life than those who claim to be. Few people on the pro-choice side of this fence want to actively encourage women to pursue abortions as though they are entirely frivolous. The phrase “safe, legal, and rare” well describes this position. But in order to truly take a pro-life view, it’s important to include the lives of the women, something the “pro-life” side never seems to consider.
As expected, Iraq replaced Afghanistan as the terrorist breeding ground of choice. Our wanton and insanely stupid strategy of attacking a country controlled by an unfriendly-yet-relatively secular leader who, despite being clearly sadistic, was also being monitored and boxed-in. His options for movements were limited and, while this was consuming resources, it was sustainable over time.
Meanwhile, other key items, like stateless terror groups (still hard for some in this administration to believe) float among the breezes looking for a new home. We have the delightful idea that we can revolutionize the Middle East not by pressuring those who sponsor the teachings of radical Islam (here’s looking at you, Saudi Arabia), but instead by invading one of the more secular governments in the region.
Brilliant!
A very tight gubenatorial election in Washington state has Democrat Christine Gregoire as the certified winner after the final vote count. Rossi, the challenger, has asked Gregoire to join him in asking for a new vote.
I can see two reasons behind the strategy. The first, from a purely selfish perspective, provides Rossi with a new opportunity to win the top spot in the state. However, even if that attempt fails, he will still have planted questions about the legitamcy of the election, weakening the new governor’s position during her term in office.
The Ayn Rand institute comments on US disaster aid:
The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism–the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it’s worth–those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans–the wealthiest people on earth–are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it.
What David Holcberg fails to comprehend is that disaster recovery aid, such as the Marshall Plan and in many other instances, serves a strategic purpose as well as an altruistic purpose. Economic development monies provide from the US government have been a key source of America’s power over the last century. The Marshall Plan, debt-forgiveness and other forms of aid have been key in (re-)building nations, not just out of the kindness of our hearts, but because developed nations that have been integrated with the world economy have more to lose when they act outside it. Their populations tend to be more receptive to new ideas, and new markets are created for goods and services that the US can offer. By focusing solely on the “altrustic” aspect, he fails to see the forest through the trees.