95% of the President’s judicial nominees have been confirmed.

Only 81% of Clinton’s nominees were confirmed in his first 4 years.

They’re a bunch of crybabies.

Left by Preston on April 28th, 2005 at 9:45 am

More fun facts:
“nearly 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.”

The passion for ‘up or down’ floor votes seems to be a new development for Republican Senators.

Left by Preston on April 29th, 2005 at 6:03 am

Robbie: Go to the DNC homepage. I was shocked. The DNC has tried and convicted Delay even before any Ethics investigations. He could be guilty for all I know but I still can’t get over their attitude. Obstructionist is too soft a word to use for the DNC atttitude these days.

Dianne

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 7:06 am

Ah, if we only had a screen capture of Newt Gingrich in 1993 and 1994…

But I wouldn’t use obstructionist as an epithet. Particularly considering the the Social Security Piratization Bill. But anyway the claim is belied by the success in Bush in implementing his agenda. Just in the last few months we’ve gotten a bill to make sure that active military and the elderly cannot declare bankruptcy as well as a $137 billion corporate tax cut to toss on top of the 2 trillion Bush has added to the debt. What more does he want?

(I like this little graph for a representation of which is the fiscally ‘responsible’ party.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html )

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 8:48 am

That site is so biased it’s ridiculous. You don’t even have to click on any of the icons to figure it out. And about the debt, the new DNC agenda you pointed me to on the other blog item say spend for this and spend for that and get the money from where? Hmm…can’t raise the deficit..I know WE’LL TAX YOU!

And speaking of SS “Piratization”…yah I experienced that a couple of years ago…husband dies age 56…having paid max into SS for many years and contributing for 40 years.. net return $200 death benefit. Don’t say I have the choice of his. I worked all my life and half of his doesn’t cut it… I made more on my own..and his daughter…well forget it. That’s what I call “piratization”.

As for Newt, how about Pelosi and dozens of her cohorts..seems they’re busy repaying their own use of private interest money fearing they’re just a bit guilty too…course that’s just a mistake…yah right.

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:39 am

Preston: And one more thing. Here’s a little site for you to enjoy. Wonder why the DNC is aligning themselves with Moveonorgasm..

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:54 am

The more I think about this SS thing, the madder I get. I am fortunate in that I worked hard all my life and had a damn good job and if I live long enough, will get my SS back. But, then there’s my daughter. She’s past 18 so won’t get her dad’s SS, and struggling to make ends meet. She could really use at least part of what her own father worked all his life for. I give her a lot…I believe in helping your own and helping people in general, but damn it, I also think she is just as needy and just as worthy as those who are now enjoying the fruits of my husband’s hard work..but she doesn’t qualify cause she makes more money than qualifies for public assistance and is too proud to consider it even. But, without me, both she and her kids would be going without a lot of necessities in life. What do you say to them Preston? Tough luck???

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:45 am

Wow- those people are putting their tax cuts to hard work!

Of course it only goest to dent the time-honored Republican monetary advantage.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:48 am

I’m sorry you’re daughter is having a hard time- she should definitely apply for the help she’s qualified for.

But what if her father had died 20 years ago while she was a child? How much money would he have in his private account? Very little I suppose. Social Security as it works now would have provided for your daughter.

Bush will have you at retirement buy an annuity so you don’t run out of money during your old age. This would prevent you from passing that money to your daughter too.

I agree- no system is perfect. But the President wants to end the insurance aspect that protects workers in the worst cases.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:56 am

I just got a chance to read your last post. Like I said before I’m sorry about your husband. But under Bush’s plan if you die after you are forced to buy your annuity the result is the same: no inheritance. In your case, you would have done better with the Privatization plan but a few years in either direction and I believe the current system would have worked better.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 11:03 am

Preston: Ok then….so do you agree a compromise on SS is necessary? Thank you for your sympathy by the way. It’s been a couple of years and you learn to cope…there is no other choice.

Now, I have a good friend who lives in Tennessee. She has had 3 back surgeries and has been given a 100% disability. She also gets TennCare. About every two weeks I talk to her .. and the topic of converation is always who she has met at the “club”…who she danced with, etc. You know Preston, I really like this woman. I have known her for 30 years. But, every time I talk I feel like saying..Linda..you’re “dancing” with a back that is so bad you get 100% disability??? And TennCare? And, then I feel bad for my own thoughts cause I know she has gone through a lot of back surgeries which have caused her a lot of pain and she has been disabled during those times and afterwards. But, now she’s dancing?

There just has to be some changes in health and disability care and SS in this country. I grant you we have to help people…but please at least acknowledge that we have to fix this system if it is to survive and it needs to be FAIR.

dianne

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 11:25 am

Well, I think that the proposal that I mentioned a couple of days ago would be that compromise.

If we were to ‘add on’ a private account to Social Security that was intended to support us for just a few years while keeping the insurance aspect of the current system that would provide an inheritable benefit. I don’t know what the best way to finance it would be but I would hope something could be arranged that was not too much of a burden on either business or individuals. (This plan would also have the benefit of rescuing Social Security by raising the age it begins w/o raising the ‘retirement age’.)

I share your outrage about people collecting benefits who don’t need them. In some cases I wonder if the agencies that run them are so strapped for cash they don’t investigate well enough: penny wise, pound foolish.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 11:46 am

So you want the guy who climbs the utility pole to totter on it at age 72? Or how about the nurse who is 70 and is working 12 hour shifts…want to put your health in her hands..or the guy at Walmart who is lifting 50 - 75 lb sacks of something at age 70? Maybe if you’re sitting behind a deskat age 70…but you have to consider those who don’t.

Add on accounts we already have. We have 401K’s and we have IRA’s But, that’s a choice. And a dang good one at that. So you are telling people first they must pay their regular SS and then they can add on to SS..or take out a IRA..ok…but what about the guy who can’t afford it? What about the guy who is working for minimum wage or even lower middle income. He won’t do it. He can’t afford to do it!

So now what?

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 12:30 pm

No you don’t raise the retirement age, just the age for Social Security. The private accounts fill the gap.

This explains the idea.

I have some questions about the numbers but it seems to solve a few of the problems of the current system without turning retirement into a crapshoot.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 1:01 pm

Preston: If I read the article correctly, the major difference between the two plans is that yours raises the retirement age, but apparently (didn’t see any data) doesn’t reduce benefits and doesn’t require an annuity. I’m not sure…would be willing to explore further but would need more data. I’d sure like to see a side-by-side spreadsheet comparing the two plans. The other thing I don’t like about your plan is that there doesn’t appear to be any “ownership” of the plan by the deceased’s family. But, bottom line is it might be the start of a compromise. Hell, if we can get this far (I may retract that statement later) why can’t Congress sit down together?

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:41 pm

I mean it raises “the social security age” which, by the way, is confusing.

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:49 pm

Yeah, those seem to be the big differences. I’m with you- I don’t know enough details about the plan to know if it works but it seems to appreciate both the importance and limitations of Social Security. But I do believe that the ‘private’ account should be inheritable.

BTW, I agree with the Democrats’ decision not to bargain with the President if cutting Social Security is on the table. President Bush is very skilled at getting what he wants (he’s batting about 1.000) and it is clear to me that his goal is to undermine Social Security not ’save’ it. His first plan threatened to bankrupt it and his current plan threatens to marginalize it. The status quo is better than either.

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:51 pm

“It is clear to me that his goal is to undermine social security..” If it’s so clear, give me one sane reason he’d want to do that.

The fact is you don’t want a solution. You want an issue for 2008 and any lie or conspiracy theory will do.

Left by dianne on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:18 pm

Uh no.

Because I believe that he is an ideologue. He believes in his core that the free market can do _anything_ better than government and that lower taxes are _always_ better than higher taxes.

And (I won’t attribute this to him but) I am certain that his political advisors understand that Social Security represents the government successfully working in our lives providing an example for other problems that could be collectively solved. Once Social Security is a reviled burden there will be little chance of Americans trusting the government to solve problems in health care, poverty, education, etc. As the believe in government to accomplish good erodes, so goes the Democratic party.

You tell me what you think of his proposals so far. Plan A took 2 trillion? dollars out of the system diverting it to private accounts. Plan B cut the benefits of the people most able to defend the program politically- the middle class elderly- and relegated Social Security to become a fringe ‘welfare’ program rather than a right earned by every worker.

I’m pretty certain Democrats will have plenty of issues to run on by 2008. Medicare will be losing its wheels, there will be state revolts against NCLB, Bush is unwilling to lower drug or healthcare costs. No conspiracy theories required.

Left by Preston on May 3rd, 2005 at 7:23 am

Just to be clear, I don’t think that George Bush is an evil monster who wants to see old ladies eat dog food.

I just believe he thinks if he phased out Social Security a free-market solution would fill in the gaps.

I believe that would happen too- but I believe a lot of old ladies will be eating dog food as well.

Left by Preston on May 3rd, 2005 at 7:42 am

Like my mother maybe…living on her CURRENT $750 SS benefit…yah the CURRENT system ensures little old ladies don’t eat dog food. Yah right. Well, she doesn’t, thanks to her 6 kids who prospered under capitalism. But, that’s here and now. The future is going to be way different. No more 6 kids to take care of the parents. No more 6 kids contributing to 1 mother in the SS system. We’ll see who is eating dog food.

Left by dianne on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:45 am

You know that George Bush’s plan wants to cut benefits for anyone making over $23,000 by tying them to costs rather than wages. If you want to see benefits greater than $750 it might be prudent to oppose his plan.

It’s funny how when the tax cuts were primarily going to people making over $150,000 a year this was helping the ‘middle class’. But when he cuts Social Security benefits for anyone making over $23,000 those people are called the ‘rich’.

Left by Preston on May 3rd, 2005 at 9:22 am

Know what. With your attitude, I don’t care anymore. I’ll collect my SS, my pension, my 401 K and my daughter will get the inheritance tax exclusion. You can pay for everybody else.

Left by dianne on May 3rd, 2005 at 7:21 pm

There’s no attitude. I prefer a country where working people get a fair break. That’s all.

Left by Preston on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:58 pm

The more I think about it I’m not sure why you’re angry at someone who would support programs that would help women like your daughter and her children.

The current government has accrued 2 trillion dollars in debts that will be paid by your daughter’s and grandchildrens’ generations while adding little to programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps working families get by. I apologize if relating that fact makes me seem uncivil but I really would think it would make most Americans very angry.

Left by Preston on May 4th, 2005 at 8:12 am

I prefer a country where working people get a fair break.

And I prefer a country where people who choose not to work (not those unable to work), don’t get free hand outs.

But we live in a country where those ‘with less’ think they are entitled to what is mine simply because I have ‘more’ of it.

Left by Robbie on May 4th, 2005 at 8:27 am

I think the answer is frustration. I’m basically a person who believes in compromise but when there is no chance of that, I get angry. One of my few flaws..lol. I wouldn’t do well in Congress.

I also relate to my own experiences, which I think is pretty natural. I support working families. I grew up poor. We never got welfare but I can tell you my dad carried mustard and onion sandwiches in his lunch pail most of the time. I also remember mom getting some free groceries and the shame of it…whoa.. People took care of their own in those days in Wisconsin and I don’t even remember if welfare was a government program that was available.

However, I don’t believe government should foster an attitude of depending on the government for a living…even for social security and I believe they should use incentives to climb out of those holes. The 401K is one of the best things that ever came out of our government programs because it inspired companies and working people to save and invest in their future. I cannot share with you personal financial information but I am astounded at the returns I will get. I do watch where those 401K investments go though and for example moved every penny out of the markets at the end of 2004 but I have that choice..I can do it daily if I want to. When I was younger I had a different mix of investments than I do now of course.

Yes, there is a big national debt that I don’t like either. But, I also don’t like stealing money from working citizens to give to illegal immigrants for their health care and education. I believe there is a lot of room for improvement in the way government spends my tax dollars.

I have a friend in Canada. He said everybody who can makes their money in the U.S. because in Canada there is no incentive to work hard and get ahead. You just rely on the government..pay your high taxes but expect your basic needs will be met by the government. He doesn’t like it but apparently a lot of people do. And, the people who make their money in the U.S. and live in Canada live high off the hog.

So, I guess it gets down to the difference between capitalism and socialism. You know where I stand.

Left by dianne on May 4th, 2005 at 9:07 am

Robbie:

“And I prefer a country where people who choose not to work (not those unable to work), don’t get free hand outs.”

We have a five year limit on welfare.

Is it coincidence that these people who ‘choose not to work’ seem to gather around cities with failed industries like Detriot or rural areas with few jobs? If poverty is a personal failing we should expect the poor to be evenly distributed through the country not clustered near failing economies.

There is a rich history of blaming the poor for their problems- the English blamed the Irish yet somehow they prospered when they immigrated to a thriving economy. Similarly we now blame Mexicans and African Americans yet clearly many of the causes of poverty are structural and societal- not mere laziness. I value hard work as much as you and Dianne do but I know that my hard work is much better rewarded than someone who went to a dysfunctional school, never went to college, and lives in a town with few jobs.

As far as the ability of Congress to reach compromises to solve these problems you might read this: The numerous rules changes by Republicans has really made compromise a fool’s errand for the Democrats: they can vote on a bill but they are shut out of the negotiating sessions between the two houses. The resulting legislation may have little resemblence to what the Democrats agreed to. As a result they have provided political cover for odious legislation while getting nothing in return. This isn’t ‘obstructionism’ by Democrats- this is just facing the reality of a bullying majority. (no, the Democrats didn’t ‘do it too’.)

Left by Preston on May 4th, 2005 at 9:40 am

Say it ain’t so, Babs?

“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997

Left by Pirate's Cove on May 20th, 2005 at 7:04 am