Republican Honesty

Even the highly scripted moments of Bush propaganda are open to revealing insights:THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you something about the Thrift Savings Plan. This is a Thrift Savings Plan that has a mix of stocks and bonds?

MS. WEBSTER: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, how hard was that to learn how to do that?

MS. WEBSTER: And I chose the safe plan, government bonds. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit.

Good lord. Not only does this hand picked woman say that she would not invest in one of Bush's accounts because it wouldn't be "safe," Bush himself goes on to say that the US is on the brink of defaulting on its debt because of his insane budgets.

Someone should remind Bush of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

How about the rest?
I believe there are quite a few sections of the constitution that Shrub needs to be reminded of. Maybe he could have Condi read it to him as a bedtime story.
by Alex Urevick 2005-03-11 09:41AM | 0 recs
Republican Honesty, LOL
Good lord. Not only does this hand picked woman say that she would not invest in one of Bush's accounts because it wouldn't be "safe," Bush himself goes on to say that the US is on the brink of defaulting on its debt because of his insane budgets.

Someone should remind Bush of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

It would appear that the President is indeed aware of the 14th Amendment but that you don't wish your readers to know that. As a reader service, here is the unexpurgated quote:

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit. But other than that -- (laughter). We're fixing the deficit. (Applause.)

It appears that the President, unlike some of his opponents, has the unmitigated gall to display a sense of humor. Shame on you, Emperor Chimpy!

But the transcript continues:

MS. WEBSTER: Oftentimes, I see people die and their family members are not eligible for Social Security benefits, at least some of these people. Had they participated in your plan, or if we had your plan, the monies that they would have paid into the savings plan would have been passed on to their heirs. And Mr. President, your plan makes sense to me. Why on earth would we allow someone else to have control of our monies? That is money that those people work very hard for. That is money that family people deserve. The family deserves that money. Your plan is extremely bold and progressive, Mr. President. We thank you for having the courage to be able to champion this cause.

Hmmm. This is supposed to be the place where the snarky comment goes but I'm stumped. I simply don't have a snarky comment about reading comprehension. But what is more puzzling than my current lack of creativity is not being able to understand how providing links to source material that contradicts your interpretation (or should I say misrepresentation) will convince the curious (like me) that you are nothing more than a partisan hack?

by Tongueboy 2005-03-11 12:04PM | 0 recs
Cool! Another troll!
I love it when troll show up to display their ignorance.

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit. But other than that -- (laughter). We're fixing the deficit. (Applause.)

How does adding the punch line change anything? Bush isn't fixing the deficit. He's making it worse. His current budget is hot air mixed with smoke and mirrors. Everything about the budget is a deceitful farce. Bush is pretending he will veto big spending bills. We'll see. He hasn't demonstrated the courage to enforce fiscal discipline so far. I don't expect him to now.

In his 2nd term Bush is still trying to pretend he is the D.C. outsider who is going to come to town to straighten things out. This is Bush's deficit. Bush's deficits are the problem he should be addressing instead of theoretical deficits 20 or 30 years in the future.

Ms Webster has obviously not been informed about the clawback provision in most of the guesstimates about what will be in Bush's stealth S.S. plan. The joke is on Ms. Webster when she discovers that 90% of "her" money will revert back to the S.S. trust fund.

But what is more puzzling than my current lack of creativity is not being able to understand how providing links to source material that contradicts your interpretation (or should I say misrepresentation) will convince the curious (like me) that you are nothing more than a partisan hack?

That doesn't even make sense. You are making some sort of peculiar disconnected generalizations that are unintelligible. Would you care to get more specific and clarify your complaint?

Specify what the misrepresentation is. I would be pleased to satisfy your curiosity if you could explain yourself. Of course the fundamental problem with debate on Bush's "plan" to "fix" Social Security is that he doesn't have a "plan".  If Bush had the courage of his convictions, we would be discussing a concrete proposal, instead of a stealth "plan" that doesn't exist.

But then Bush doesn't want to put a plan on the table because he's just a political hack who is too dishonest to engage in genuine political discourse.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-11 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Cool! Another troll!
Bush's deficits are actually much worse than portrayed.  Every year in his Presidency, Social Security rings up big surplusses in the neighborhood of $250 billion per year.  His deficits don't include a trillion dollars of trust fund gobbled up.

And social security is what is risky?  Give me a break!

by David Kowalski 2005-03-12 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Cool! Another troll!
I was hoping tongueboy would come back and play. Trolls are such cowardly creatures. That explains why they admire our Cowardly Liar-in-Chief.

Have we ever had a President who was so afraid of the American people?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 01:57PM | 0 recs
Fixing The Deficit....In Cement, That Is!
I'm afraid you don't realize that fix is one of the more famous examples of words in the English language which are their own opposites.

As I noted in an article I wrote for Random Lengths News:

Indeed, "By 2010," according to the CBPP, "discretionary spending outside of defense and homeland security would be cut by $65 billion, or 16 percent."

Bush claims that cuts are needed to lower the deficit are refuted by his own budget figures, noted CBPP economist Richard Kogan.

"Their phrase is 'we are cutting the deficit.' That is a cause and effect lie," Kogan said. Economic growth and projected troop reductions in Iraq are expected to lower the deficit even more than Bush proposes, Kogan explained. Thus, the deficit would be even lower "in the absence of any legislation," he noted. As a result, the five-year deficit grows from $1.364 trillion to $1.393 trillion--again, more than ten dollars for every penny cut in food stamps.


by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 12:02AM | 0 recs
Just right off the top, tongueboy...
What exactly is Bush doing "about the deficit" except making it worse?

BTW, the chances of Ms. Webster or anybody willing their "personal" accounts to a survivor are nil.

Since you're so "curious" why don't you research it and find out why.

by Southern Patriot 2005-03-11 12:27PM | 0 recs
Remind Him?
I doubt he's ever read it.
by zappatero 2005-03-11 12:44PM | 0 recs
Nifty. MyDD has a Right-Wing Troll Infestation
First badger-whatever and now Tongueboy.  It really is only a matter of time before any liberal blog develops one or more right-wing talking point trolls dedicated to interfering with the conversation.

Shows how sad they are more than anything else.

by paperwight 2005-03-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
MyDD has a Right-Wing Troll Infestatio
They have to come here because there is a reality vacuum on the right. That's why they always enter the conversation with disjointed, spurious accusations that don't make any sense.

Where can I find badger? I love tearing the wings off trolls for amusement. They are universally dim witted, slow moving creatures who offer little sport, but there is entertainment value in watching them roll around helplessly in circles of logical fallacies.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-11 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD has a Right-Wing Troll Infestatio
He was ragging Sen. Feingold in the comments to Sen. Feingold's post.
by paperwight 2005-03-12 06:46AM | 0 recs
Constitution? What's that?
I thought the Patriot Act took care of that annoying piece of hemp.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-11 05:10PM | 0 recs
The SS "Reform" Campaign
tour has become an embarrassment.  Surely even Republicans can see the idiocy of continuing for the full 60 days when Bush is just damaging himself. Surely they will shoot it in the head soon?
by Bob H 2005-03-12 02:27AM | 0 recs
It's a 70 year dream of the Right
In large part the Cato Institute and the Heritage Institute were established to kill Social Security. There is a Ayn Rand book (I don't remember which one - it was 30 years ago that I read it) that drew a straight line between Social Security and a communist victory march down 5th Avenue. Those colllege Republicans who let the cat out of the bag with "Hey, Hey, Ho, ho Social Security has got to go" were just articulating what is a tenet of faith among the Right.

These people fundamentally believe that Social Security is wrong, morally wrong in the way they perceive Socialism to be morally wrong. Indeed they don't make any distinction between the two.

And they have spent the last generation in the smug "knowledge" that Social Security was not sustainable and would need a bailout. They simply assumed that they would be in a position to set all the terms. "Yes we will allow Social Security to survive, but only in a crippled way that proves that we were right to oppose it all along".

Two generations of Republicans, the Newties and the College Republicans have grown up in the shared knowledge that Social Security would come crashing down. And never heard a dissenting word until about four months ago when they triumphantly entered the blogosphere armed with conventional wisdom and op-ed snippets and encountered people who had actually read the Social Security Annual Reports.

This is not sleight of hand intended to distract, this is the central core of the Republican ideology and we are killing them.

Lets face facts. Until two months ago very few people, Left or Right were up to speed on this topic. Most assumed that what they had heard for twenty years in every news story and editorial ever printed, that Social Security would run broke in some future year, was simply true. A fact no more to be disputed than that the sun rises in the East.

A large part of the Rights claim to moral supremacy is the belief that the private market is always better than government. The dawning realization that Social Security is not a basket case but instead is likely to be a net lender to Capital forever, that Capital will owe Workers trillions of dollars for decades to come is like their worst nightmare come to life.

There is a tendency to treat this as a tactical victory, a beating back of privatizers for the time being when in fact we are on the verge of something huge. We are going to break the ideological back of the Republican Party on Social Security. And then we are going to rescue Medicare (because the numbers are just as bogus over there).

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Channel your inner FDR, Democrats are fighting back and we are fully armed with the numbers.

by Bruce Webb 2005-03-12 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a 70 year dream of the Right
Sadly, these people don't realize that a little bit of social security is the best innoculation against communism there is.
by wayward 2005-03-13 04:14AM | 0 recs
MyDD has a Right-Wing Troll Infestation
Republican honesty?  Their idiot leader has been dealing in Orwellian speak for so long they actually think being deceitful is being honest.

Besides, when a troll starts spouting lies on our site that's when you know they are desperate and things aren't looking too good for them -- like trying to convince people Social Security is in crisis and we need private accounts to rescue it!

This reminds me of the columnist, Tom Oliplant's analogy of how helpful Bush's Privatization Plan will be to Social Security: (I'm paraphrasing) "Someone meets up with a guy who has been on the desert for a long time and he asks if he is thirsty.  The man says yes!  So the other guy says, well I can offer you orange juice and it is actually better for you than water.  The thirsty man says great, I'll take it.  The man hands him a glass of powdered orange juice and says, "Here, all you need to do is add water."

by HWS 2005-03-12 03:13AM | 0 recs
14th Amendment
No amount of 14th Amendment trumps a treasury that does not physically have the money to pay the obligation.  Bush can remember or forget (smart money is all on one of these choices) the 14th Amendment, but if if there is no cash on hand, and no one wants to lend the money, there is no way to pay.  This was even more true when the 14th Amendment was passed than it is now.  At that time, the Treasury either did or did not have enough gold and silver in the vaults to pay its obligations when they came due.

The 14th amendment at most meant that Congress could not by legislative fiat void the debts.

(Of course, it could try to pass a 100% tax on the gross income from cashing Federal Bonds, which would have the same outcome.)

by phillies 2005-03-12 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: 14th Amendment
The government can always pay. It owns plenty of printing presses. This may mean hyperinflating the dollar if done in excess. But that would be preferable to balancing decades of profligate spending and tax cuts to the wealthy by simply abrogating your responsibilities to retirees.

We have been off the gold standard for a long time. It's all "Full Faith and Credit" these days.

"trumps a treasury that does not physically have the money to pay the obligation"

The only physical money in the Treasury Department is in the wallets of whatever employees still choose to carry cash. Your stocks, your bonds, your savings account, the cash value of your insurance policy, the claim dollars needed to pay your medical bills and fix your car if you crashed it right this second, are all nothing more than electronic bits on a server somewhere. Hell for that matter you could be fully invested in gold and your likely only evidence is an account statement.

Everything is a 'worthless IOU' if you don't believe in the people who are actually controlling the underlying asset.

by Bruce Webb 2005-03-12 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: 14th Amendment
Good to run into you again Bruce Webb. Long time no see.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 02:02PM | 0 recs
Cookie problems
Blocked me from posting on dKos and MyDD as well as reading NYT and WaPo. An upgrade to Panther returned me from lurker to poster. But you have been doing a great job. With all respect to Chris and Jerome the real action on Social Security is happening at Brad DeLong and Max Sawicky's sites, at least for those of us who are focusing on the economic numbers rather than the political ones. Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal and Max Speak, You Listen! Both are real economists, Max at a think tank (Economics Policy Institute), Brad a Professor at Cal. There is a lot of cross pollination from those sites with the Angry Bear run by three rather more anonymous, but still right on the money economists.

JB I may have seen you here or there on those sites but not with any regularity. I know for a fact that Krugman reads DeLong because he occasionally posts. If you want to mix it up with the big dogs you need to visit one or all. Certainly I have been making myself a nuisance daily, but they haven't banned me yet  and I never have to define "Intermediate Cost" or "Low Cost". If you don't know pgl, Anne and Liberal you don't know three of the most articulate and smart defenders of Social Security out there. See ya there or here.

by Bruce Webb 2005-03-12 11:59PM | 0 recs
I am very sorry
Yes,I think something has project that
............................................................................
by markcqq 2005-07-11 10:59PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads