The confused...

Conservatives confuse capitalism with the mechanisms of regulating a society for the common good of all citizens... The latter process usually referred to as politics.

Capitalism addresses markets: good and services... Somehow our elected officials believe there is a diminished role for leadership and stewardship of our SOCIETY ... things like education, etc. are left to the whims of the market and its demand for "lower prices" ... This is shear madness.

A perfect example is my state's budget (process): The majority Republican legislature is so adverse to a (temporary sales) tax increase that it is willing to further cut-funding to our already dismal education system... (ranked 48th or so our of the 50 states). What's even more discusting is that they seriously considered abdicating there responsibility as representatives and making the tax hike proposal a ballot measure...

Does anyone even know what "representative democracy" means anymore?

Oh, that good ol'e fashioned manufactured outrage...

If you're like me, right-wing fantasy occasionally shows up in your inbox masquerading as history... Well, that happened this morning when a very good friend forwarded me a msg.

As usual, the email does a good job at generating outrage at those liberals in government who have backed away from promises and are, in general, ruining our American way of life... If only the 'facts' they list were actually, well, facts.

This one is about Social Security; how democrats from Eisenhower to Carter & Clinton have systematically screwed the American people out of promises and benefits.

Of course, all it takes is a quick visit to the handy snopes site to debunk this stuff. But again, what good conservative worth his salt would want to confuse truth with a caricature of history?

Well, I've taken the time to respond, point-for-point, to the emails assertions. As you'll see, 99% of those points are outright wrong. Even the ones that have a modicum of truth to them cast the villains as the evil liberals. I take a bit of joy noting that it was Reagan who signed into law the legislation that started taxing SS annuities... the one item listed that is partially true.

Anyway, read for yourself. If you want more details, check out snopes and here the Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, May 20, 1997. My research (if you can call looking at a couple of websites research) are in red.

Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY ROBBERY
If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this, this is an excellent visual presentation....Now it is too late to be angry, just remember who did this when you vote....

Thank you for sharing Social Security, How It Got Stolen with Our Social Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
GOOD TO HERE ! Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary,

FALSE: There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid."

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program,

MOSTLY FALSE/misleading: Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

FALSE: The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and ...

PARTIALLY FALSE: The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security. The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds - with interest. Every retirement fund works like this. You money does not sit in a bank, it is used by others and repayed (hopefully) with interest.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

PARTIALLY FALSE: It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.

----------THEN-----------------------------------

Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

FALSE - a complete fabrication as far as I can tell. SS funds are INVESTED (oftentimes loaned to the gov). However, those investments (loans) pay interest and the trust fund as earned more than an average of 8% annually since 1960. The fact that the gov borrows against the trust fund (paying it interest) is no different than a company investing it's pension funds in stocks/bonds. This is another example of FALSE statements being used to stir-up the masses...

-------------WORSE STILL-----------------------------

Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and thedemocratically Controlled House and Senate.

SS funds are NOT part of the general fund... The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

FALSE - Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Not completely FALSE, but manipulated to make it look like dems did something 'bad'.

Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296‐166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.

-------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!----------
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
= Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:

Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

COMPLETELY FALSE:
No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve... Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers..
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

Apparently, this is being sent around a lot. Another example of right-wingers trying to re-write history to generate outrage. Kudos to my buddy who sent it to me so I could debunk this stuff... at least on this site.

Maybe pass the link to this blog entry around … of course, the truth never stood in the way of a good-ol'e conservative world-view. Still, pass it around. Who knows, maybe someone will actually read it.

Longing for a real opposition party...

Republican's simply no longer have a serious platform... And even real conservatives know it. Here's a post by Richard Posner, one of the most respected judges in the country ...

The Becker-Posner Blog: Is the Conservative Movement Losing Steam? Posner

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

But that's about ALL that conservatism is about these days. There's nothing behind it. To quote the judge again:

the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

This is the legacy of neo-conservative leadership: it's brought us to where we find ourselves today. Bankrupt, largely illiterate but still belligerent.

Hopefully, it's not to late to find some type of reasoned opposition to balance the views of a democratic executive and legislative branch. But with the likes of Rush at the helm -- well, I doubt it.

FBI Interrogator: Torture doesn't work -- duh.

Op-Ed Contributor - My Tortured Decision - NYTimes.com

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

The idea of torture is wrong on so many levels it shouldn't even be an issue. Even if it did "work", it is still immoral and diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to stand for.

The spurned lover...

I can't improve on Bill Maher's words, so I won't try...

The GOP: divorced from reality - Los Angeles Times

Look, I get it, "real America." After an eight-year run of controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, this latest election has you feeling like a rejected husband. You've come home to find your things out on the front lawn -- or at least more things than you usually keep out on the front lawn. You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you want to call it a whore and key its car.

That's what you are, the bitter divorced guy whose country has left him -- obsessing over it, haranguing it, blubbering one minute about how much you love it and vowing the next that if you cannot have it, nobody will.

But it's been almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She's found somebody new. And it's a black guy.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the memories. You'll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

The values on the Right

We're told that the right represents the "moral majority" ... that they stand for traditional American values. Yea right: like that perennial favorite "value" of the right -- "the end justifies the means". It seems to be a recurring theme (think Nixon, Reagan).

I find myself dumb-founded at the reasoning used by the Republicans who say "enhanced interrogations kept us safe". Why do people consider such an argument even relevant let alone true?

I thought ethics and values spoke to what you do when no one is looking. If an enemy is willing to do heinous things to our citizens our response is a true test of those values. If you abandon the rule of law and our principles when its convenient, well -- were they really values? If our creeds and laws are only there for show -- well, we're worse than those who openly profess their violent goals.

Besides, even if we "only" used techniques like water-boarding and sleep deprivation, who wouldn't say what the interrogator wanted to hear? Especially after 183 sessions on the water board...

And even if torture did "keep us safe" -- well, what else can it help with? Maybe water boarding suspected murderers will coax them to admit their crimes. Maybe sleep deprivation will help someone remember the names of accomplices -- or at least of people he doesn't like. The possibilities are endless. All we need is another tough-on-crime republican in office.

We need a full investigation. I hope the justice department follows the trail wherever it leads... and I think it'll lead to the very top.

The dumb interviewing the evil... or Fox News

Ignorance was on display again today... Hannity interviewed Cheney. What could be better entertainment -- except that Fox News viewers actually believed it was a NEWS show...

More like bread and circuses...

Most (intelligent) people should have realized it was the witless interviewing the evil as soon as Sean Hannity accused Chavez of being a "dictator" ... News flash Sean: Hugo Chavez was elected ... thrice.

But facts like that can't get in the way of a good liberal bashing session. The fact that Obama shook his hand obviously means that our leader is ready to sell out our interests.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they're dealing with a weak president.”

Really? The VP is instrumental in authorizing torture of "enemy combatants" -- but that's not a hit on the US' image & influence with allies and enemies alike... But a handshake at a conference is detriment to those relationships?

I just can't imagine the bizzaro-world these people live in.

Maybe a little history: Nixon gave Premier Leonid Brezhnev a Cadillac during a visit in 1972. Was he an appeaser? Was Nixon undermining our relationship with the USSR by appearing weak to the leader of the "evil empire"?

Of course, Brezhnev WAS a dictator ... a man who blatantly threatened the US with nuclear annihilation.

And then there was Mao... More weakness! Those damn diplomats...

Reagan - the god of the republican party, sold weapons to Iran ... but somehow he's remembered as the "tough" leader.

Lets not forget that Dick Cheney was an advocate for our "ally in the war on terror" -- the Pakistani's and their dictator Musharraf... Yea right, allies. The Pakistani intelligence service has and still IS more closely allied with the Islamists in the western frontier than the West -- or even the Pakistani government.

I don't know if the current hyperbole is a result of the dumbing-down of the US population -- or if it's purely the result of the read meat Fox News and their cohorts spew into the willing ears of the faux-patriots who put flag-waving and belligerent chants above a basic understanding of the rule of law.

(ah - that run-on felt good.)

Maybe its a LOT of both...