04.28.05
Why live-commenting instead of live-blogging? Too much work!
As usual, I won’t watch the president’s speech. I may listen to it on the radio. If you’re watching it and/or would like to provide running commentary, I will open this thread around 8:20 p.m. EST, 10 minutes before the speech begins…wait a second. Will his speech pre-empt “CSI”? Man!
Previous live-commenting posts:
- Live-commenting MSNBC? (170 comments)
- State of the Union (291 comments)
- Election Night Live-Commenting renamed Florida Goes to Bush! (623 comments!)
Update (8:20 p.m.): Live-comment the speech, if you dare.
James at Outside the Beltway is live-blogging.
33 Comments
Bland speech, but press conference the best since Ari Fleischer took on Helen Thomas.
Persons hand-picked to attack Bush - and he attacked back. Great. Made attackers look like fools. Bush was ‘loaded for bear”.
1 When are troops coming home? No brainer. Only an idiot would ask this - and Bush talked back.
2 Why aren’t you bringing troops home so more can be available for North Korea?
3 Are you frustrted about your failures in Social Security, Iraq, etc..
4 Why don’t you have 2-party talks with North Korea?
5 Question about “rendition” - answer “That’s a hypothetical”
The “Cowboy” is riding off into the sunset - leaving the Bush haters in the dust.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 04.28.05 @ 8:55 pm
He did well. If nothing else, helps Joe Public see the big picture minus the moonbat noise machine. Watch the polls reflect that people got the message, as opposed to the 31% approval of SS reform yesterday.
Comment by Andy — 04.28.05 @ 9:04 pm
Apparently I did not hear the same things Andy and Frank did (I listened on WTOP). 2008 can’t get here fast enough.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 04.28.05 @ 9:52 pm
La Shawn,
I went back to look at the blogging from election night. You guys sure had a lot of fun. I stayed with a friend and we watched the returns come in. 2004 was much better than 2000. I stayed with the same Republican friend the night of the 2000 election and had brought champagne to celebrate with. I went to bed around 11:00 PM CST thinking that Gore had won. I woke up at 3 am and heard the TV. My friend was still up and reported that they had taken back Florida from Gore. It was two months before we could get together and finally drink that champagne
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.28.05 @ 11:39 pm
“Watch the polls reflect that people got the message, as opposed to the 31% approval of SS reform yesterday.”
what did his 60 days accomplish?
Comment by actus — 04.28.05 @ 11:41 pm
The congressional Repubs are starting to cower somewhat it seems, hopefully it’s only the rino faction. Bush is a lame duck now and the question is how much political capital remains in his warchest to whip them into shape. He needs them on Bolton, judicial appointments, and Social Security, not to mention Iraq (no timetable).
There was only one question about Bolton (that I heard)…I would think he’d make more of an issue of that. If Bolton withdraws Bush should appoint him ambassador to Mexico. They’d close the border from their side if Bush promised to replace him.
I particularly enjoyed hearing Mr. Larson as the Syrian ambassador :).
Comment by Allan — 04.29.05 @ 1:05 am
It didn’t pre-empt CSI, it just delayed it an hour (heavy sigh). I’m still trying to wake up ’cause my bedtime is 10pm and I didn’t get to bed until shortly after 11.
BTW, I had to convince my sweetie to watch the Q&A session–he hates listening to reporters–but once I explained that it’s fun to listen to Bush put ‘em down. Bush had a couple of gems for the reporters so he enjoyed it after all (g).
Comment by Lornkanaga — 04.29.05 @ 8:43 am
Evil Bush pre-empts Survivor (Grrrrr)
Yes I know Survivor aired an hour late. I don’t watch Survivor anyway, finding it too stupid to tolerate. But…
Trackback by JackLewis.net — 04.29.05 @ 9:48 am
I thought it was pretty good. Sounded alot like what I heard last Tuesday when I saw him in person.
Comment by RepJ — 04.29.05 @ 10:21 am
Yeah, I think the Administration could have given viewers a bit more notice—done better planning.
Still, if my President wants to speak to me, I figure it behooves me to listen…… whether there’s an emergency or not, whether it cuts into favorite programs or not.
I like GWB. I like hearing from him—any time.
I don’t pay taxes to CSI, or Survivor.
Comment by Glamchild — 04.29.05 @ 10:59 am
Thoughts on the Press Conference
Though specific numbers are not known, it’s believed that hundreds of thousands of American and British troops were either “killed, wounded or went missing” during the Battle of Normandy. Despite the tremendous loss of life, however, it remains one …
Trackback by Punditish — 04.29.05 @ 11:21 am
I am never voting for George W. Bush again!
Comment by Another Random Liberal — 04.29.05 @ 12:06 pm
Did anyone ask about immigration?
(Admin edit)
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.29.05 @ 1:14 pm
Glamchild,
Comment by Andy — 04.29.05 @ 3:01 pm
Heh. What a stupid performance. One minute he says that the treasury securities that social security is invested in are a just a bunch of IOUs, and another minute he says that under his privatization plan, people could invest their fund in …. treasury securities.
What does this man think bonds are, anyway? A bond from General Motors is an IOU. So is a treasury bond, but a Treasury bond is backed by the full faith and credit of the American public, and in over 200 years of U.S. history, we’ve never defaulted on such obligations, and we never will.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 04.29.05 @ 5:27 pm
Heh, bonds are bonded with a certificate that says it’s worth X. SS says don’t quote us, but it’ll be worth something or nothing when due. All investments is a form of an IOU, they just have different strengths and weaknesses. And basically Bush is saying if you like the SS investment fund, then you can invest your PIA in that. Where’s the dichotomy? Don’t try to parse so much that you choke on the logic
Comment by Andy — 04.29.05 @ 5:34 pm
There is a difference between a Treasury bond with your name on it and one that reverts to politicians.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.29.05 @ 7:56 pm
I think social security should be dismantled completely. I will begin working very soon (presently in college) and I cringe at the notion of the govvernment stealing a slice of my salary to subsidize losers. If it was just old folks I could deal with that but there are so many leaching losers. I know several personally.
Faithfully contribute to SS over the entire course of your working life, and receive a small percentage in return. What a rip off. Let me keep MY money. I’ll buy a nice fishing boat, a new pickup and stash the rest away. Now that’s a plan I can live with!
not only that, but I could retire early as long as I save carefully, because I’d get to keep tons more of my own cash!!! When big government’s tentacles are cut off, everybody wins.
Comment by John — 04.29.05 @ 9:42 pm
“There is a difference between a Treasury bond with your name on it and one that reverts to politicians.”
politicians pay both of them. They can legislate away either of htem
“Faithfully contribute to SS over the entire course of your working life, and receive a small percentage in return.”
Bush is proposing to make your return lower.
Comment by actus — 04.30.05 @ 11:22 am
And when politicians legislate away T-Bills, they will pay a heavy price from market forces. Can you say crash? And any politician that even dares to propose welching on this type of debt would be tarred & feathered, rightly so.
And when they legislate away SS IOUs, only the “victims” will pay the price. The market will more likely discreetly cheer it, as Congress will have de facto written off that portion of unsustainable debt. You know, the debt that the MSM/DNC loves to alternatively slam as irresponsible or non-issue, depending on the meme of the day.
“Bush is proposing to make your return lower”
What is it that you don’t get? As an investment vehicle, SS is lousy, discriminatory & arbitrary.
For those who say Bush is fear mongering, that’s funny. According to my 2003 Statement for Calendar Year 2002, it states: Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73 percent of scheduled benefits.
Now that’s truth in advertising. Wonder why it took so long for the SSA finally to come around to begin stating something to that effect that on your statements? How dare the Bush admin begin tellling like it is.
When I look at their projections, I’d just as soon take my and my employer’s contibution and put it all in a 401K. The result would be that I’ll no longer need to contribute 10% ~ 15% to my 401K under the current scheme. Net result would be equal to a 10% raise and still have more in my 401K than I do now, since I haven’t always participated in the 401K plan since I entered the workforce.
And if congress wants to tax a portion of that to maintain SS Disability, Family & Survivor benefits, so be it. I’d still come out ahead with personal wealth that will keep on giving, as long as I have someone to pass it on to.
Fianlly, talk about major flip-flopping. the MSM/DNC have always been for means testing, now that Bush is on board, ‘Oh, no, Bush is evil, he wants to make our returns lower’. You conveniently forget that the returns are already lower than low when compared to other means of investments.
In any case, what’s done is done, and for the past 18 years, my financial assumptions were based on SS not being worth a bucket of warm spit by the time I retire. Anyone that doesn’t plan in this regard is simply a fool or gullible.
Comment by Andy — 04.30.05 @ 1:11 pm
I always figured that the paraphrase of Garner’s quote was more disgusting than the actual quote.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.30.05 @ 1:25 pm
Yeah, but consider at the time, more Americans were familiar with outhouses and buckets than running water.
Actually, the real McCoy had value in medieval days as people made a living out of collecting it, letting it ferment until the ammonia rose, then would… (Well, if you don’t know, you probably won’t want to, ewww.)
We’ve come a long ways from the days of the royal paperless wiper and nit-pickers who thankfully have been outsourced to technology.
But that’s precisely how Gardner, a pre-Zell Miller DINO, felt about FDR’s SS and other socialist policies. Too bad he couldn’t have stop him fom enacting the New Deal.
Comment by Andy — 04.30.05 @ 2:06 pm
“And when they legislate away SS IOUs, only the “victims†will pay the price. The market will more likely discreetly cheer it”
I think the wealthier will cheer because its essentially a retroactive regressive tax shift, seeing as how payroll taxes are more regressive than the general fund.
“What is it that you don’t get? As an investment vehicle”
Its not an investment vehicle. Its an insurance vehicle. Those get negative returns.
“Fianlly, talk about major flip-flopping. the MSM/DNC have always been for means testing, now that Bush is on board, ‘Oh, no, Bush is evil, he wants to make our returns lower’.”
Not of social security. Turning SS into welfare will allow right wing class war to eliminate that welfare. Not only that, but remove one of the underpinings of retirement security for the middle class. Right and left, everyone knows that.
Comment by actus — 04.30.05 @ 2:49 pm
I said market, not wealthy. The wealthy already kissed their contributions goodbye anyway. The market will cheer it as the overall debt will be reduced by the stroke of a pen.
The current illusion is that only part of SS is and has always been means tested. And nothing else should ever be allowed to be means tested. I can agree with that to the extent that politicians are the worst sort to be entrusted with means testing.
1) No Social Security Means Test, Eh? Guess What?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian5.html
2) The American Academy of Actuaries recommend means-testing the rest of SS in order to stretch budget $$ and ensure those who need it most gets it.
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/means_0104.pdf
3) Between 1985 and 1996, more than a dozen serious papers were written on means-testing & privatzation. Bush didn’t just come up with that off the top of his head.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedcwp/9618.html
I’m done with SS/welfare. The MSM/DNC has led the witless to the koolaid tank and the masses are drinking it up.
Comment by Andy — 04.30.05 @ 5:28 pm
“The wealthy already kissed their contributions goodbye anyway. ”
Is over 90K wealthy? they have the same contributions as the people who make 90K. thats the cap. Perhaps we should means test contributions.
I know its not an original idea.
Comment by actus — 04.30.05 @ 11:08 pm
Franklin Roosevelt was a great man with a great idea. The New Deal and a lot of the things that came with it saved this country and its people. Now GWBush, wants to destroy something that he never could have conceived if he had lived 1,000 lifetimes. Give the SS trust fund back all of the $$$ that has been leeched from it over the years. Raise the cap on contributions to the 1st $1,000,000 (or more) of income. There is no way Bill Gates and I should be paying the same thing for SS.
By the way, GWBush IS fear mongering on his SS World Tour. He PLAINLY said that SS would be bankrupt in 2041. Not true, as you all know.
I chuckled when GWBush said he wanted to index SS payments to income. Sounded just like redistribution of wealth to me. Had that been Bill Clinton saying that, you neo-cons would have HOWLED.
Bolton? He is Cheney with a mustache. His nomination is IRRESPONSIBLE. You don’t send a bully to the most important diplomat post in the world. You don’t let a bull loose in a china cabinet. Nor do you let a blind dog run loose in a meat house. It should be instructive to any SERIOUS person that Colin Powell hasn’t endorsed him, let alone talked about his nomination publicly. Silence is far worse than damning with faint praise. There is a place for Bolton: he could coordinate the search for WMD, since he (also) was SO sure they existed(I couldn’t resist!)
I thank God I’ll never need SS. But I ain’t everybody that may or will, so I’d like to the necessary adjustments made. What GWBush proposes is garbage, unless you are an investment banker. THEY will make a killing.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 05.01.05 @ 2:11 am
Rafael, I used to think Colin was uebercool and that his inability to whip the State Department into shape was just a matter of him trying to get along.
Since 9/11, I couldn’t pin down what was wrong with him. That is until someone gave him a Colinoscopy
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=4445
Now I just see him as a statist snake. Now Condi has to undo the damage and show the bureaucrats that they work on behalf of the President.
Comment by Andy — 05.01.05 @ 2:23 am
New Social Security Calculator using Bush’s proposal.
http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/04/social_security_2.php
Comment by Andy — 05.01.05 @ 9:58 am
Andy:
interesting. what are the assumptions behind hte ‘what social security is able to pay’ and the assumptions behind the returns on the privatized accounts?
Comment by actus — 05.01.05 @ 11:02 am
Andy, thank you for the information. I can’t get angry with you (or that dang BlueBeard) because you are at least sincere in your Conservatism. I am a little closer the center, because I KNOW that extremists on either side are loony (I am NOT calling you an extremist).
The Colinoscopy was interesting. I read with particular interest the section about his feelings about the Gulf War and the flap about the Powell doctrine. I am not one that thought the Gulf War should have ended without taking Saddam down. Saddam actually posed a credible threat then. You know, all of things his regime DIDN’T have when GWBush just HAD to sacrifice (needlessly) over 1,500 American lives, but I digress.
I was still on active duty (USMC) at the time and we were HORRIFIED that the ground war lasted a mere four days. However, that decision was GWHBush’s to make, no matter what Powell or Big Bad Norman said. Attempting to lay that at Mr. Powell’s feet is weak. The Commander-in-Chief makes that call Andy.
As for the Powell Doctrine actually being the Weinberger Doctrine, who is to say the two men didn’t work on such a formulation together? They worked closely together. Let me give you an example from my life. Traditionally, Black churches have a Seven Last Words service on what is called Good Friday. One year, my pastor and I talked about what we each were going to preach, since I was preaching the first word at a church where a dear friend of hers was the pastor. Do you know that the sunday after Ressurection Sunday a good portion of her sermon came from what we had talked about? I mean she used my peculiar phrasing and everything! Was this plaigiarism? No. It was cross-pollinzation. And, it further validated (for me) that my ecclesiastical leanings were on point on that subject. Who is to say Cap and Colin didn’t have such a symbiosis, such a meeting of the minds on the subject as to make their individual thoughts indistinguishable over time?
As for his unusual career track, there is no explaining that. I knew a SgtMaj that ascended to that rank in 15 years! I am not making this up. THAT is unheard of. So who knows why Colin Powell was so favored. The author of the article surely didn’t. But that was a cheap attempt to smear him for being a ROTC. The man served with distinction, no matter if the author wants to suggest that he only went ROTC to pay for college. And if he (and others, Black and White) did, so what? I spent time on an Officer Selection Team during my tour on recruiting duty. Guess what: we played up the education angle. It is a fair trade, service for a free sheepskin.
As for the SS calculator, cool. It doesn’t tell the whole story and you know that. But if widely disseminated, it will probably garner GWBush some support. I don’t know if all the assumptions are correct, especially since the providers of it are in GWBush’s corner. The jury is still out on this one. I am still glad I won’t need SS.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 05.01.05 @ 11:27 am
Rafael, I’m with you 98% on Colin/Gulf War. Without a doubt, he’s quite saavy and as with any other career track, the closer you get to the top, the more political it gets.
Who is the real Colin Powell? What guides his moral compass? Unlike Wesley Clark, had Colin tossed his hat in the ‘04 democratic primary, I think he could have walked away with it. Now that he’s made his opposition overt, I think both sKerry and cHillary have reason to fear ‘08.
Regardless of party inclinations, imagine what a dynamo he’d be as a “democracy evangelist”. If he were of a mind, he could speak truth to the issues in Africa and other tinpot dictatorships on behalf of liberty and personal freedom.
I guess my big disappointment with him is his real-politic stand. More so, given his immigrant background — to my way of thinking, akin to ‘[G]lad I made it thru, now let me shut the door behind me’.
That and the laissez-faire business as usual vis a vis State Dept. As Diplomad eloquently illustrated time and time again, the State Dept folks are throughly infested by touchy-feely bureaucrats gone native.
A prime example is the Foreign Service folks for Saudi and how they fought tooth and nail to maintain pre-9/11 business as usual. Of all the embassies, the Saudi mission is the only one with a fast-track visa application process which were handled by Saudi Travel agents. The fact that almost all of the 19 hi-jackers came thru that channel with gaping holes in their application was of no concern.
Another good example would be the active support with Saudi officials to prevent American women & kidnapped American children from escaping the clutches of tyrannical husbands and families.
As for Papa Bush, all I can say is he wasn’t fit to follow Reagan, and thank God that at least Dubya wasn’t a chip off the old block. Which is why I voted for that lunatic from Dallas in ‘92 and abstained in ‘96/’00.
Comment by Andy — 05.01.05 @ 12:16 pm
Ross Perot a lunatic? PRICELESS!!!
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 05.01.05 @ 9:10 pm
Nevertheless, it would have been interesting had he won in ‘92. Especially seeing how he had a special interest in, or contempt for, Islamofascism.
That and aside from that sucking noise, he had some interesting points about taxation & budgeting. If nothing else, he would have forced both the dems & gops to stop playing games with numbers and debate the issues. We could use a lunatic like that every once in a while.
Comment by Andy — 05.01.05 @ 9:52 pm