Bush wants to renew Social Security push after November election
whoever
Bush wants to renew Social Security push after vote
31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush hopes to revive his plan to overhaul the U.S.
Social Security retirement program if his Republican party keeps
control of the Congress in the November midterm elections, the Wall
Street Journal reported on Saturday.
Despite polls suggesting Democrats have their best chance in years to
regain control of the House of Representatives, Bush told the
newspaper in an interview he was confident a power shift was "not
going to happen."
"I just don't believe it," he said, adding that if Republicans prevail
at the polls, next year might be a good time to reintroduce the effort
to reshape Social Security because he could "drain the politics out of
the issue."
Bush was forced to abandoned his 2005 push to add private accounts to
the retirement program, in part because of concerns among Republicans
that the unpopular plan would jeopardize their chances in this year's
elections.
Some Democrats have emphasized the Social Security reform plan in
their campaign to oust Republican incumbents in November, contending
it would inject too much risk into the program and push the government
deeper into debt.
Bush made Social Security investment accounts a top domestic priority
for his second term, arguing such a system would help young people by
putting the retirement program on a more sustainable financial
footing.
Dr Feelgood
"whoever" <who...@whatever.net> wrote in message
news:vj56g29ghlil2bgcc...@4ax.com...
Yea; everyone should just follow the Kennedy plan and add illegal
Mexicans to the list of people drawing SS benefits and bankrupt the
system twice as fast. To hell with our children and real American
citizens that may need SS in the future, RIGHT? Why should anyone do
anything to fix a broken system?
While were at it, lets just eliminate all immigration rules, let
everyone in that wants to come here and give them all SS benefits too.
Then after terrorist come and set off a few nukes there won't be a
government to bother with or tell anyone what to do. Large portions of
the country won't be fit for habitation anyway. We could simply change
the system to every man for himself and survival of the fittest.
EDM
>
> Bush wants to renew Social Security push after vote
Translation: Bush wants to renew attack on Social Security
after vote
> 31 minutes ago
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
> President George W. Bush hopes to revive his plan to overhaul the U.S.
> Social Security retirement program if his Republican party keeps
> control of the Congress in the November midterm elections, the Wall
> Street Journal reported on Saturday.
Translation: overhaul = gut
> Despite polls suggesting Democrats have their best chance in years to
> regain control of the House of Representatives, Bush told the
> newspaper in an interview he was confident a power shift was "not
> going to happen."
>
> "I just don't believe it," he said, adding that if Republicans prevail
> at the polls, next year might be a good time to reintroduce the effort
> to reshape Social Security because he could "drain the politics out of
> the issue."
Huh? That makes no sense at all. To "drain the politics out
of the issue" would require a Democrat-controlled Congress,
not Republican.
Time will tell, but I believe the American people have finally
had enough of this terrorist and the machine that powers him.
tapw...@roomtemperature.deg
newspapers. If his antics don't sell newspapers (and TV news shows) then the
newspapers will replace him with someone who CAN sell newspapers or they
will go out of business.
"whoever" <who...@whatever.net> wrote in message
news:vj56g29ghlil2bgcc...@4ax.com...
tkd
> "whoever" <who...@whatever.net> wrote in message
> news:vj56g29ghlil2bgcc...@4ax.com...
>
> Yea; everyone should just follow the Kennedy plan and add illegal
> Mexicans to the list of people drawing SS benefits and bankrupt the
> system twice as fast. To hell with our children and real American
> citizens that may need SS in the future, RIGHT? Why should anyone do
> anything to fix a broken system?
I thought it was Bush that wanted to pay illegals and/or former illegal
aliens social security?
whoever
supression through so called Voter ID laws in GOP controlled Red
states, computerized voting machines, the repugs will do their damnist
to rig this election in their favor.
Dr Feelgood
> the repugs will do their damnist to rig this election in their favor.
The Demoncrats are the ones that always get the Cemetery votes.
EDM
Those pale in number to what happened during the last two
presidential elections. Read Greg Palast's book, "The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy". Everything from improper
voter roll "scrubbing" in Florida to making sure black
Americans would be forced to stand in line 4-8 hours to
cast their votes. Simply astonishing.
Doc
news:pu2Ng.6043$v%4.1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Unfortunately it is all irrelevant. The people don't elect the president
anyway, so the "big" election is just hype. We vote because that makes the
masses feel like they are doing something.
Honestly though, I can't see where one party is any better than another.
The person in charge will do what they please no matter what thier
affiliation is.
Here we have a Democratic Governor and there is a bit of a cry about how
much better it would be to have a Republican in charge. Nationally we are
hearing the opposite. Personally, I don't think it matters.
jim
wrote:
>Those pale in number to what happened during the last two
>presidential elections. Read Greg Palast's book, "The Best
>Democracy Money Can Buy". Everything from improper
>voter roll "scrubbing" in Florida to making sure black
>Americans would be forced to stand in line 4-8 hours to
>cast their votes. Simply astonishing.
Shucks, no need to read a book. You can get your daily dose of
leftist liberal brainwash from the mainstream media or go see a Spike
Lee or Mikey Moore movie.
EDM
You know, I wish what happened in '00 and '04 qualifies as
leftist liberal brainwash. The fact is, it doesn't. The fact is,
democracy is a threat to Republican power. E.g. they fought
tooth and nail against motor voter bills, and when their
blocking of these laws didn't work, their response has been
to implement "scrubbing" scams (among other tactics) to get
as many qualified minority voters off the rolls as possible.
At least open your mind, read Palast's book (the first two
chapters are posted on his website) and then comment on the
facts presented. That's usually asking too much of right-wingers.
jim
wrote:
What goofy asses we are, believing that one party is filled with
saints while the other is loaded with sinners. All politicoes are
assholes; it's a job requirement. You oughta read Jean Pearce's
document which the left is unable to refute as to how Willie's
Chinagate led to 9/11. Of course, you'll have to find it online as
the socialist-friendly, pro-affirmative discrimination,
morally-relativistic, appease the enemy mainstream media ignores such
editorials.
Dr Feelgood
"EDM" <EDM_spa...@rsii.net> wrote in message
news:%HhNg.10176$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Asking Demoncrats to use "HONEST " facts is the impossible dream.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Sound familiar?
1200 absentee ballots were sent in, all 100% demoncrat party line votes,
from a local cemetery. They were caught by a local worker because they
had plot numbers instead of apartment numbers. Before anything was done
with them the auditor confirmed the address was a cemetery. A check by
plot numbers later proved they at least got the names correct. A check
on the absentee ballot request showed all signatures were strangely
similar.
How about Seattle 2004 where demoncratic precincts got a 112% return and
many votes were counted at least twice. ( Hey George that raised our
guys rate I think I'll run that batch through again. )
EDM
Oh please. You idiots and your relentless "gates" (Filegate,
Travelgate and the dozen other "gates" over 4 1/2 years)
completely discredited your attempt to unseat a twice
elected sitting president. Bill Press said it best:
"Bill Clinton lied about an extramarital affair and Republicans
insisted he be impeached. George W. Bush lied about the
need for war and Republicans insisted he be re-elected."
Fifty years from now, assuming our current catastrophe-in-
chief isn't successful in his bid to throw the world into utter
chaos, historians are going to look back in astonished wonder.
Doc
news:RBdNg.37934$JO5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> Doc:
> You don't believe anything that you have posted and you will be at the
> polls when they open thinking you may have convinced someone that is
> opposed to you, that their vote doesn't count.
Of course I vote. But I also know that when voting for the President, I
am not voting directly. I know that in the system in place, each
state's votes are recognized by the electors of that state as an
indication of who the people in the state beleive would be the best
choice. Then it is up to the electors to decide whether the people are
correct or not and cast thier vote. The electors directly vote for the
president, not the people.
And just what "side" am I supposedly on? Who is "opposed" to me?
I personally don't see a point in the party system. I understand the
concept that like minds will band together, but I don't see where it
matters when it comes to running the country. This is supposed to be
the "united" states. It seems a more divided country than a united one.
I suppose we could just do away with the 2-party system, but that would
require a rewrite of the Constitution, and I doubt that would ever
happen.
> My wife and I were able to vote early at the recent primaries and our
> vote will be counted on the November ballot. I urge everyone get out
> and vote, or vote absentee to insure your vote is counted. Don't let
> anyone talk you out of democracy. Perhaps we can restore it from the
> plutocracy that has stolen it.
Primaries are very different. The primaries are qualification
elections, used to thin down the candidates from each party. I often
don't vote in the primaries unless there is one candidate who seems to
have a better platform than the others running in that party.
Biggest problem I have with primaries is I don't remember which party I
listed when I registered to vote. My ex-wife and I registered in
opposite parties, with the thought that this way we would get literature
from both sides and be able to make better decisions. The truth was we
got junk mail from both sides and didn't get much useful information.
I usually vote in local elections, but the last couple have had
unopposed candidates so I didn't bother to cast a vote. Why vote if
there is only one choice?
Good luck with the democracy vs. plutocracy. Our country has always
been a plutocracy. The people vote, but only the wealthy can afford to
run. Our founding fathers were mostly businessmen, men of wealth. One
of the reasons behind the electoral college method of voting for the
president, is that the common man isn't educated enough to make a good
decision regarding the running of the country. Only people with enough
money to go to school can make those decisions.
The United States has never been a true democracy.
> It is possibly more important than ever before that the disabled and
> retiree's on social security get out and vote to show we do still
> count for something. Show we can't be talked out of our vote and it's
> not for sale.
While a nice thought, the votes don't show who voted for what. In the
end, no one knows if more disabled/retirees voted for one candidate over
another.
Now that this has gone completely off topic...
jim
wrote:
>Oh please. You idiots and your relentless "gates"
Pick the political Usenet group of your choice and I'll post the
document. I don't want to tie up this group with politics.
Read it and I'll return the favor by researching what Palast has to
say.
Six String Stu
less. Whosoever controlls the tools controls what the masses are given to
formulate thier opinions.
Interestingly enough in the last century we learned the lessons that should
be so appearent now. Yet the bovine mentality of our "moral majority (gag!)"
is content with the facist propaganda of the current administration.
My only hope is that the world does not gang up on us and put our country
fifty years in arrears. Finding ol george's theeth in the bottom of a burned
out bunker doesnt bother me at all though. ;-)
--
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
"jim" <nos...@home.org> wrote in message
news:45054af6...@news.newshosting.com...
Bother@forgedpostsanonymous.unorg Cymbal Man Freq.
arrest you on false trumped-up charges, just to keep you from voting.
"EDM" <EDM_spa...@rsii.net> wrote in message
news:%HhNg.10176$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
tapw...@roomtemperature.deg
the jail space, or the balls.
"Cymbal Man Freq." <Don't Bot...@ForgedPostsAnonymous.unorg> wrote in
message news:GzQNg.41456$8j3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
The Weasel
> "jim" <nos...@home.org> wrote in message news:45054af6...@news.newshosting.com...
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:55:49 GMT, "EDM" <EDM_spa...@rsii.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Those pale in number to what happened during the last two
> > >presidential elections. Read Greg Palast's book, "The Best
> > >Democracy Money Can Buy". Everything from improper
> > >voter roll "scrubbing" in Florida to making sure black
> > >Americans would be forced to stand in line 4-8 hours to
> > >cast their votes. Simply astonishing.
Fiction usually is.
> > Shucks, no need to read a book. You can get your daily dose of
> > leftist liberal brainwash from the mainstream media or go see a Spike
> > Lee or Mikey Moore movie.
>
> You know, I wish what happened in '00 and '04 qualifies as
> leftist liberal brainwash. The fact is, it doesn't. The fact is,
> democracy is a threat to Republican power. E.g. they fought
> tooth and nail against motor voter bills, and when their
> blocking of these laws didn't work, their response has been
> to implement "scrubbing" scams
In Florida, the "scrubbing" laws were enacted by Democrat Governor
Lawton Chiles (1998). Choicepoint was hired before Katherine Harris was
elected. And under that Code (Fla. Stat. 98.0975), only an election
supervisor can remove a voter from the rolls. In 2000, the majority of
those supervisors were elected Democrats. When the NAACP sued, the
majority of defendents were Democrats.
> (among other tactics) to get
> as many qualified minority voters off the rolls as possible.
>
> At least open your mind, read Palast's book
That is your mistake. Palast contradicts himself.
EDM
Not so. Palast takes issue not with Florida's law, but with the
way it was used by Katherine Harris to selectively (and
wrongly) disenfranchise thousands of minority voters in the
state who should have had their votes counted. See the history
of this debacle at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File and
feel free to correct any of the info presented.
The Weasel
Yes it so. Here is an example.
March, 2002
"GREG PALAST: Well, golly gee, are you telling me a politician doesn't
know what happens in a state where every vote is fought over, and they
were wondering what would happen when they could just erase 57,708
votes with the flick of a computer button."
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/Greg_Palast_031102.html
Palast KNOWS this is false, he says so himself in December 2000.
" In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file
seemed to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't
use it at all."
And
".....If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were
incorrectly targeted for removal from voting rosters."
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
In the Salon.com article, he finds that not all the counties used the
protential felon list, thus, not all on the list could have been
remove. The Palm Beach Post follows up his work and finds that a full
30% of the counties did not use the list. The Post could only prove
that 108 were WRONGFULLY removed because they were mis-identified as
felons, and another 996 were WRONGFULLY removed because the state of
Florida does NOT have the right to remove a voter who was a convicted
felon from another state.
We know that not all 57,708 were removed, YET Palast seems to ignore
his own work 2 years later, and makes the claim that all were removed.
That makes Palast self defeating.
"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's
computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of
cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One
Naples man was told he couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon
still serving time in a Moore Haven prison."
"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had
written clemency orders, although most other states automatically
restore voting rights to felons when they complete their sentences.
This policy conflicted with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had
"no authority" to deny civil rights to those who had them restored in
other states. After the election, the state changed its policy."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
> Palast takes issue not with Florida's law, but with the
> way it was used by Katherine Harris to selectively (and
> wrongly) disenfranchise thousands of minority voters in the
> state who should have had their votes counted.
Palast ignores the fact that Harris didn't remove a single voter from
the rolls. The 108 voters who were WRONGFULLY removed because they were
mis-identified as felons, were not removed by Harris, they were
WRONGFULLY a county election supervisor. The majority of those election
supervisors were Democrats.
Those supervisors were warned if they could not verify the information,
the voter should be allowed to vote.
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any
person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally
incapacitated with respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether
or not the felony information is accurate or are unable to verify the
accuracy of the information, we recommend that affected persons execute
the affidavit prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short,
if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you
should allow a person to vote.[135]"
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
> See the history
> of this debacle at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File and
> feel free to correct any of the info presented.
This opinion piece uses Palast as a source, thus it is not reliable.
EDM
> ".....If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were
> incorrectly targeted for removal from voting rosters."
>
> http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
>
> In the Salon.com article, he finds that not all the counties used the
> protential felon list, thus, not all on the list could have been
> remove. The Palm Beach Post follows up his work and finds that a full
> 30% of the counties did not use the list. The Post could only prove
> that 108 were WRONGFULLY removed because they were mis-identified as
> felons, and another 996 were WRONGFULLY removed because the state of
> Florida does NOT have the right to remove a voter who was a convicted
> felon from another state.
>
> We know that not all 57,708 were removed, YET Palast seems to ignore
> his own work 2 years later, and makes the claim that all were removed.
You're arguing semantics while ignoring the larger question.
Given Bush's margin of victory in Florida's vote count, if
"no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted for
removal from voting rosters", Bush in fact lost Florida.
Dr Feelgood
Not unless all 7000 would have voted for his opponent. A fact you
demoncrats seem to ignore. With more demoncrats having the authority to
remove voters it's more likely the removal cost President Bush more
votes.
EDM
Hogwash. The disenfranchised voters were overwhelmingly
African-American and therefore 91% against Bush in 2000.
Liberals Are God's Chosen
wrote:
>Hogwash. The disenfranchised voters were overwhelmingly
>African-American and therefore 91% against Bush in 2000.
That's right. We keep them on our "victim plantation," ....
dumbed-down, doped-up, dependent, and voting for us en masse.
Formula for success.
The Weasel
Targeted does not mean that those voters were wrongfully removed.
The Weasel
How many election supervisors, the majority who were Democrats, failed
to follow Fla. Stat. 101.49???
EDM
It's a moot question, since Choicepoint had already decided
who would appear on voting rolls and who would not.
The Weasel
Really??? Fla. Stat. 101.49 is the law that is to be used to allow
those who where wrongfully remove to cast a ballots. How is that a moot
question?
> since Choicepoint had already decided
> who would appear on voting rolls and who would not.
Choicepoint did not remove a single voter from the rolls.
EDM
You're clueless. Read it for yourself (link may wrap):
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/Sec49.htm&StatuteYear=2004
101.49 has deals with mismatched signatures, not wrongfully
removed voters.
> How is that a moot
> question?
>
> > since Choicepoint had already decided
> > who would appear on voting rolls and who would not.
>
> Choicepoint did not remove a single voter from the rolls.
Then you'll need to explain why Florida paid them $2.8 million.
Choicepoint removed thousands of voters from the rolls, many
if not most of them were in fact qualified to vote.
Dr Feelgood
<snip>
> Hogwash. The disenfranchised voters were overwhelmingly
> African-American and therefore 91% against Bush in 2000.
>
So you admit you're a raging left wing extremist racist.
EDM
No. But thanks for admitting you're a right-wing airhead.
The Weasel
You haven't read very much on the 2000 election have you. This is a
quote from the Florida Division of Elections.
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any
person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally
incapacitated with respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether
or not the felony information is accurate or are unable to verify the
accuracy of the information, we recommend that affected persons execute
the affidavit prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short,
if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you
should allow a person to vote.[135]"
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
> Read it for yourself (link may wrap):
> http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/Sec49.htm&StatuteYear=2004
Did you notice that you quoted a law from 2004??
> 101.49 has deals with mismatched signatures, not wrongfully
> removed voters.
The Florida Division of Elections told the counties to use this
affidavit and then let the citizen cast a vote.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that my name is _____; that I am _____
years old; that I was born in the State of _____; that I am registered
to vote, and at the time I registered I resided on _____ Street, in the
municipality of _____, County of _____, State of Florida; that I am a
qualified voter of the county and state aforesaid and have not voted in
this election."
> > How is that a moot
> > question?
> >
> > > since Choicepoint had already decided
> > > who would appear on voting rolls and who would not.
> >
> > Choicepoint did not remove a single voter from the rolls.
>
> Then you'll need to explain why Florida paid them $2.8 million.
> Choicepoint removed thousands of voters from the rolls, many
> if not most of them were in fact qualified to vote.
False premise. Choicepoint was not paid to remove any voters from the
rolls.
Dr Feelgood
I'm an equal opportunity bigot. I hate stupid people of all races,
religions and genders.
I always vote for the person I feel is best qualified to fill the
position without consideration of political affiliation.
Al Gore could not generate my vote for any possible elected position. I
find him NOT qualified to do anything useful in any political office.
Even though he invented the internet, was the first man to discover
America after he died on a cross to save mankind from sin and was the
creator of all that has ever been created. He has one hell of a nerve
crying foul when he is the one that invented the voting system. The only
thing he could say that I could possibly believe would be if he said he
did not have sexual relations with that ( or any ) woman. :~)