Re: Looting Social Security
Cheryl
"Latoya" <Lat...@example.com> wrote in message
news:mtf8q4tg43om588a2...@4ax.com...
>
> Looting Social Security
> By William Greider
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider/print
>
> This article appeared in the March 2, 2009 edition of The Nation.
> February 11, 2009
The Nation? I suppose you realize The Nation is about as far left as they
come, right? There's no harm in reading what they have to say, of course.
After all, it's obvious that I've read them in the past since I know who and
what they are. Most (if not all) news (be it newspapers, magazines,
television, radio, etc.) has an agenda. I try my best to read various
sources and realize the truth rests some where in the middle.
Now... I just need to find an article written by an extreme right magazine
to read so I can find the middle truth in all of this.
Dave Garland
> The Nation? I suppose you realize The Nation is about as far left as
> they come, right?
Um.. no.. The Nation is a mildly left-of-center rag, by about the same
distance that the Washington Times (the Moonie paper) is to the right.
In Europe it would be considered centrist.
> Now... I just need to find an article written by an extreme right
> magazine to read so I can find the middle truth in all of this.
Washington Times should do for balance. Or Fox News. If you want
extreme right, go for National Review.
Dave
clams_casino
>Cheryl wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Nation? I suppose you realize The Nation is about as far left as
>>they come, right?
>>
>>
>
>Um.. no.. The Nation is a mildly left-of-center rag, by about the same
>distance that the Washington Times (the Moonie paper) is to the right.
> In Europe it would be considered centrist.
>
>
>
>>Now... I just need to find an article written by an extreme right
>>magazine to read so I can find the middle truth in all of this.
>>
>>
>
>Washington Times should do for balance. Or Fox News.
>Dave
>
>
FoxNews for "balance"? Now that's funny.
Is Rush too liberal for you?
Jack
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>FoxNews for "balance"? Now that's funny.
>
>Is Rush too liberal for you?
No, but last night, Fox sounded like they took a big swig of Obama
Kool-Aid.
The best thing about Rush is that he terrifies you weenies,
notwithstanding the fact that the mainstream media which has been in
the liberal tank for 50 years reaches faaaaarrrr more audience than he
does.
Cheryl
"Dave Garland" <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:o5-dnf3v_MU69DjU...@posted.visi...
> Cheryl wrote:
>
>> The Nation? I suppose you realize The Nation is about as far left as
>> they come, right?
>
> Um.. no.. The Nation is a mildly left-of-center rag, by about the same
> distance that the Washington Times (the Moonie paper) is to the right.
> In Europe it would be considered centrist.
Um... guess again. I know the below is from wikipedia and some of
wikipedia's info is sketchy, but in this case not because the facts are not
in contest, which most likely means the magazine itself had input. Don't
read the overview only. Read the history. And I want to make it clear that I
don't consider the publication without value. The Nation has had a very
significant historical value to our country. Without the left, there would
be no right, and without either, there would be no center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation
>
>> Now... I just need to find an article written by an extreme right
>> magazine to read so I can find the middle truth in all of this.
>
> Washington Times should do for balance. Or Fox News. If you want
> extreme right, go for National Review.
Yes, the National Review would probably work to balance out an article from
The Nation. I would say the same of an article written by The New Republic
except it has moved more to the right now days. It's not a right-wing
publication. It's just become less left-wing.
Dave Garland
> FoxNews for "balance"? Now that's funny.
Not balanced all by itself, Fox is rightwing. A balance to "The
Nation".
I guess I should have realized that "balance" is a loaded word re Fox.
Since I don't own a TV, I've never actually seen more than YouTube
excerpts of any Fox show myself, and don't tend to remember the buzzwords.
The poster I was replying to has apparently never seen actual far-left
media. Actually, in the US it's hard to find, since even the more
liberal mainstream media is mostly controlled by corporations looking
out for their own interests. It's probably mostly found in dingy
basement bookstores with names like "Red Flag" and "May Day".
> Is Rush too liberal for you?
Just another blowhard rightwing drug addict to me.
Dave
clams_casino
Until a few months ago, I hadn't realized Rush was still around. I
figured he went the way of "your father's Oldsmobile". It surprises me
that his followers are still alive.
Does anyone (under 60) actually own an am radio? Does anyone under 40
actually know what an am radio is?
On the other hand, one does have to admire someone who can attract an
audience playing the same broken record for 20 years. There is no doubt
that Rush is proof that you can fool a portion of the people all the
time. Heck, some 15% of the population still believe GW did a favorable
job, so I suppose there should always be a following for an entertainer
like Rush..
Vladimir
By contrast, it's hard to admire someone who was taken in by a
dedicated Marxist solely because of his watermelon smile and a gift
for reading from a teleprompter.
Ah, but such is the power of white liberal "guilt."
clams_casino
>
>
>By contrast, it's hard to admire someone who was taken in by a
>dedicated Marxist solely because of his watermelon smile and a gift
>for reading from a teleprompter.
>
>
>
Difficult to follow someone who actually speaks in coherent sentences, eh?
Vladimir
He's quite easy to follow.
Even when he speaks out of both sides of his mouth as he did last
night.
Way Back Jack
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Heck, some 15% of the population still believe GW did a favorable
>job, so I suppose there should always be a following for an entertainer
>like Rush..
Actually, Bush should be a hero to the girly-boy set. He supported
set asides in Adarand v Mineta; wants open borders and amnesty for
illegal invaders; tried to have Jose Medellin removed from Texas death
row; jailed Border Patrol agts. for doing their jobs; took a lukewarm
stance against affirmative reverse discrimination in the Gratz and
Grutter cases .... Sounds like a poster boy for the left to moi.
Dave Garland
> Um... guess again. I know the below is from wikipedia
which characterizes The Nation as "left of center". That sounds about
right. It's sort of a middle class, progressive, mildly leftist mag.
The sort (if I may result to stereotypes) that a Unitarian college
professor might subscribe to.
I don't dispute your characterization of it as "left". My quibble is
with the word "far". I suspect you've never seen an actual far-left
publication, such as Workers World, Challenge-Desafio or the like.
They don't get much distribution by the corporate chains.
Of course, characterizations depend a lot on where the viewer is
standing. It's going to look different depending on what your
particular personal politics are, what your definitions are, and what
the standards of your local area are.
Dave
Vic Smith
<no_emai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, the National Review would probably work to balance out an article from
>The Nation. I would say the same of an article written by The New Republic
>except it has moved more to the right now days. It's not a right-wing
>publication. It's just become less left-wing.
Really doesn't matter if a publication is left or right.
The facts are what's important, and the rest is opinion.
Facts are generally verifiable using other sources.
Of course using selective facts is a method of expressing opinion,
so it takes some work to get a complete picture.
You appear to know all this.
Sometimes you can find a balanced set of facts in one place.
SS facts are often distorted by the "right" because the right still
hasn't adjusted to the fact that FDR was actually President of the
U.S.
The "right" is REALLY having a problem now that the stock market they
so love has gone south.
It's really funny to recall all the claims that SS is a "Ponzi" scheme
seeing as how everybody should now know the real Ponzi scheme was
being run by Wall Street.
SS keeps a set of long term books second to none.
Anybody who worked on a payroll or otherwise contributed to SS can see
on their SS statement contributions going back at least 45 years.
Mine goes back that far.
The biggest problem with SS is the gov has been spending the SS
contributions of dishwashers and other low-wage workers instead or
raising gen revenue through income and other taxes.
This is a product of the long-term fungibility issue of money itself,
and gov "trust fund" debt actually coming due at some point.
Even if SS had been collecting more money into the "trust fund"
they would have spent it as general revenue.
In the case of SS I think in a few years the gov will be paying out
more than it is collecting, so they will have three options.
1. Collect more SS taxes into the SS fund.
2. Pay out less.
3. Start paying their trust fund debt by raising tax revenue
elsewhere.
Could be a combination of the three.
Option 2 is least likely to happen at all, since it would produce
The Great 20 Million Geezer March on Washington.
The SS "trust fund" is solvent through about 2041, but only if
the gov kicks in the money it "borrowed" from workers' contributions.
They will. People won't tolerate the gov acting like Ponzi.
To extend solvency beyond 2041 options 1 and 2 are available.
BTW, I think I stuck to the facts here.
But anybody is welcome to dispute them, as I'm often wrong.
--Vic
Cheryl
> clams_casino wrote:
>> FoxNews for "balance"? Now that's funny.
>
> Not balanced all by itself, Fox is rightwing. A balance to "The
> Nation".
>
> I guess I should have realized that "balance" is a loaded word re Fox.
> Since I don't own a TV, I've never actually seen more than YouTube
> excerpts of any Fox show myself, and don't tend to remember the buzzwords.
>
> The poster I was replying to has apparently never seen actual far-left
> media. Actually, in the US it's hard to find, since even the more
> liberal mainstream media is mostly controlled by corporations looking
> out for their own interests. It's probably mostly found in dingy
> basement bookstores with names like "Red Flag" and "May Day".
Well, now, that's certainly a stereotype coming from someone who obviously
doesn't know me. LOL
I agree with you about the content of mainstream publications. There really
isn't much "freedom of the press" unless it comes in the form of
self-publication. Of course, self-publication has become incredibly easy now
days with the web, PODs and whatnot. I'm also pleased to hear you don't own
a television. I do, but I often wished I didn't.
As for me, though, I've read publications written in Spanish, French, and
German. I've also read English translations of novels, essays, and articles
by Cuban, Chinese, North Korean, Islamic, Russian, etc. writers. I've even
read the English translations of all of the works written by Marx and
Engels. You will simply need to trust me when I say I've read... well,
publications most people in the USA would probably consider politically
repugnant.
There's a reason for my wide array of reading, though. I hold a PhD in
English and Comparative Studies. This sort of reason or not, I do think it's
important for people not to limit themselves to only USA writers. We live in
the world, not just the USA. :-)
Bob F
The best thing about Rush is that he shows the right wingers as the idiot wackos
they are.
"Liberal media" indeed. It's never been true, no matter how many times the right
wingers claim it so.
Please name the liberals that own the "liberal media".
Bob F
It is hard to listen to a president that can actually speak the english
language?
Bob F
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:09:43 -0500, in alt.social-security-disability
> "Cheryl" <no_emai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with you about the content of mainstream publications. There
>> really isn't much "freedom of the press" unless it comes in the form
>> of self-publication. Of course, self-publication has become
>> incredibly easy now days with the web, PODs and whatnot. I'm also
>> pleased to hear you don't own a television. I do, but I often wished
>> I didn't.
>
>
> own it all now..
And they are all so liberal.
Vladimir
wrote:
After claiming that the disastrous stimulus bill would create or save
3.5 million jobs -- "more than 90 percent" in the private sector --
Obama then enumerated a long list of exclusively government jobs that
would be "saved."
Vladimir
wrote:
>Jack wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27480205/
Study: Media coverage favors Obama
ABC, NBC, CBS newscasts in past 2 months show 65 percent positive
Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on
network evening newscasts reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent
of the cases, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
View related photos
AP
updated 9:23 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008
NEW YORK - John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a
fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against
Barack Obama have a new study to point to.
Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on
ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected
positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to in 31 percent
of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and
Public Affairs.
ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the
"CBS Evening News," the group said.
Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with
Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters,
although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns.
The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.
"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a
better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a
George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you
watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."
Nearly 1,000 stories analyzed
The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23
and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse
race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For
instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he
thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up
as a pro-Obama comment.
When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say
that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the
negative column for McCain.
ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and
42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive
for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent
positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).
Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28
percent positive for the Democratic ticket.
Negative coverage for McCain-Palin ticket
It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage
for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism
concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly
negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more
mixed.
Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for
the People & the Press showed that television continues to be
Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news
networks.
But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.
For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign
news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as
Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents,
the Pew center said.
MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11
percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent.
The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38
percent independent.
The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and
24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
>Please name the liberals that own the "liberal media".
It's all about the bottom line.
Liberals like money too.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>
>"Liberal media" indeed. It's never been true, no matter how many times the right
>wingers claim it so.
>
Just as one example, the media absolutely buries black-on-white hate
crimes, while keeping white-on-black hate crimes in headlines for
days, even weeks.
Like some cites, puss?
Bob F
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:23:40 -0600, in alt.social-security-disability
> Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The biggest problem with SS is the go has been spending the SS
>> contributions of dishwashers and other low-wage workers instead or
>
> Not spent, invested in US savings Bonds.
And then spent. What does the US do with the money they take in selling savings
bonds?
The right wing calls those bonds "worthless IOU's".
ares
entertainment I can live without any more. Same stuff different day. I
have an AM radio and am under 60; sometimes hard to remember to turn it
on....
ares
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:wYipl.42161$6r1....@newsfe19.iad...
Bob F
Hartmann" show on it. He's the polar opposite from Rush.
ares
ares
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gofc0k$mq1$1...@news.motzarella.org...
D.F. Manno
"Cheryl" <no_emai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Latoya" <Lat...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> > Looting Social Security
> > By William Greider
> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider/print
> >
> > This article appeared in the March 2, 2009 edition of The Nation.
> > February 11, 2009
>
> The Nation? I suppose you realize The Nation is about as far left as they
> come, right?
IOW, you can't counter the argument, so you smear the messenger.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Cheryl
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:dfmanno-5ACB7D...@feeder.motzarella.org...
I smeared the messenger? I would think it would take a lot more than my
above questions to "smear" someone. Oh well. I suppose it's all in a
person's prosepctive as to what a "smear" might or might not be, so...