Another question about social security...
Here's the question
The reason we're doing this, or so the proponents of this plan claim, is that social security is going to go "bankrupt" in about fifty years time. Of course, as has been pointed out in my other posts, no such bankruptcy will or even can occur. What's going to happen is the backup funds are going to run out and the system will shift back to all the money coming entirely from those paying into social security, which will in fact require some reduction in benefits, etc.
Now, the proponents of the above plan say that plan is necessary because the current system is going to collapse. Here's my question: why are they unwilling to pay a single cent into the current system, but they are willing to pay two trillion dollars into their proposal? Consider, if you will, what will happen if that money is instead payed into the present system. I suspect any social security "crisis" will vanish in a puff of smoke.
So the question is: what possible advantage does the privatization scam have over the current setup? Sure, privatization looks like a replacement--not a good replacement, but an actual one. Assuming you first pump $2 trillion dollars into it that you don't pump into the current social security system!
I'll let you think about that one for a bit.
The US "okays" evidence gained through torture.
Does nobody in the White House remember why we didn't allow this in the past? No, not for humanitarian concerns (we're not so noble...) but rather because evidence gained through torture is horribly unreliable!
Most people who support torturing people for evidence (it's fucking unsettling typing that phrase...) paint a scare scenario as something like "What happens if we have evidence of a 'nuclear 9/11' that is going to be carried out tomorrow and the only person who knows the details isn't talking to us? Would you allow torture then?" What a stupid argument. Of course not. The guy is going to lie to us, possibly putting us in a worse situation than we began in. How is this not obvious? He's willing to withold information that could potentially save hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of lives but he's not willing to lie to us???
Frist admits "abstinence only" sex non-education programs need review.
Follow-up question that didn't get asked: "Mr. Frist, if the review indicates 'abstience only' programs are ineffective will you oppose them?"
In case anyone was wondering, here is a map of the (incomplete) exit poll data. Here's something funny: you know Zogby's election prediction? The exit poll data matches that pretty closely.
Also, the recounts in Ohio are complete. Bush won the recounts by 119,000 votes. Some lawsuits are still pending. Etc.
A lowly soldier does what thousands of highly paid journalists and over five hundred elected representatives haven't: asks Donald Rumsfeld "What the fuck is wrong with you, man?"
Okay, i embellished on the question. But if you read between the lines...
The Howler has a similar take.
99.8% of complaints to the FCC about That Certain Football Commercial came from the same source.
Color me unsurprised.
The Five Basic Traits of Fundamentalism.
Oh, and while we're talking about fundamentalism...
Boo hoo, one of your profs said something you didn't like? I cry for you. Really.
I failed a political science class for disagreeing with my professor (he was a die-hard moral relativist/libertarian of the intensely stupid kind, i pointed this out repeatedly) but you don't see me posting his name on the internet and nor do you see me on Faux News (or whatever) pretending as though this is some vast libertarian scheme to brainwash America's youth. But i guess since i'm not a Republican i don't count.
TPM discusses why the DLC is a problem. I'll give you the short version: you know what they took away from the last Presidentiall election? That there are (to borrow from TPM: get this) too many Democrats in the Democratic Party.
Go watch the Republicans pretend they're die-hard defenders of minority rights in America! It's so cute!
You know all those stories about "banning the US Constitution/Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"? Well, as it turns out, none of it is true. It's not the case at all.
Color me unsurprised, take 2.
Bill Oh Really continues his crusade against anyone who dares call him on his nonsense.
Hey Bill, when are you going to start your windmill tilts at me? C'mon, i wanna be a big bad evil liberal too!
Speaking of Mediamatters, have some meta-commentary: MMFA demands retraction from CBS over false statements made by CBS relating to MMFA.
This is a good one to pass around, people. Can we get some e-buzz going on it perhaps?