"Social Security Will Go Broke in 1988" - Bush

[No Limit]

This is for all of you that don't think Bush will say whatever it takes to get you to go along with him:

http://www.davidsirota.com/
(posted today)

Bush Said SS Would Go Bust By 1988

Both USA Today and the Texas Observer have reported Bush claimed in 1978 that Social Security would go broke in 1988 unless Congress privatized the system. As the Observer reports, Bush "warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."

According to USA Today, as a congressional candidate in 1978, George W. Bush was claiming "Social Security would go broke in 10 years" - 1988. Even then, he said the only way to fix this crisis was to privatize the system. [Source: USA Today, 7/28/2000]

This is proof positive that Bush will say anything - no matter how ridiculously inaccurate - to claim Social Security is in "crisis" and needs to be privatized. Nothing he says about Social Security being in crisis today should be regarded as credible once these past statements are taken into account.

There ya go.

 

[Tr0n]

This deserves to be bumped.

 

[satch919]

 

[No Limit]

Were are all our republican friends that defended Bush's social security plan???

 

[Absinthe]

Color me surprised.

 

[Tr0n]

Color me surprised.

*grabs some crayons*

Which color?

 

[Absinthe]

Pink. I like pink.

 

[Bodacious]

Were are all our republican friends that defended Bush's social security plan???

I can look past this the same way you look past Kerry committing war atricities and still wanting him in office.

 

[Absinthe]

I can look past this the same way you look past Kerry committing war atricities and still wanting him in office.

Hooray for sidestepping!

 

[Bodacious]

Hooray for sidestepping!

:thumbs:

 

[Tr0n]

Damn't I paid good money to see a debate...now you republicans better get your asses in here and debate this topic. :frown:

 

[Gray Fox]

What kerry commited war atrocities, links please.

 

[The Monkey]

*Waiting for some right-wing to join the discussion*

 

[No Limit]

I can look past this the same way you look past Kerry committing war atricities and still wanting him in office.

You are getting really close to being put on my ignore list. I already explained to you how that Republican talking point is flawed and I will not have you hijack this thread with it.

 

[Bodacious]

What kerry commited war atrocities, links please.

Source Do a ctrl-f and search for atrocities to find it fast.

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

I can find the audio somewhere.

 

[Bodacious]

You are getting really close to being put on my ignore list. I already explained to you how that Republican talking point is flawed and I will not have you hijack this thread with it.

No, you just tried to spin it to fit your agenda. Go ahead put me on ignore, see if I care.


What I posted above id Kerry's reflection on the events. Look at what he said:

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

Just because everyone was doing it doesn't justify him committing atrocites. Just because he was ordered to do so as you claim does not justify him committing attrocites. If you follow the logic you preach then the soldiers at Abu Grhaib who said they were ordered to commit atrocites are innocent. That logic is flawed as you can see.

 

[The Monkey]

I never liked Kerry, but I really hate Bush.

 

[Bodacious]

Damn't I paid good money to see a debate...now you republicans better get your asses in here and debate this topic. :frown:

*Waiting for some right-wing to join the discussion*

I don't get it. What do you want a right winger to say? That back when Bush said that the economists of the time thought SS would be in crisis? Yah right. For all I know Bush was a coked out alcoholic moron back then. That and I don't have any economic data on SS back then, so who am I to comment seeing as how I wasn't even born until '82?

Despite what you people think conservatives aren't morons or idiots. There is no point to this argument exept for a dig or slap in the face on the other side. I personally don't think there is anythign wrong with that, 'cause I do it all the time. But to subject yourself to the other side's ridicule is moronic. Ergo, the lack of coservative points of view in this thread.

Like I said, if you can look past Kerry's transgressions of the past, then I can look past Bush's transgressions of the past.

 

[Korgoth]

I don't get it. What do you want a right winger to say? That back when Bush said that the economists of the time thought SS would be in crisis? Yah right. For all I know Bush was a coked out alcoholic moron back then. That and I don't have any economic data on SS back then, so who am I to comment seeing as how I wasn't even born until '82?

Despite what you people think conservatives aren't morons or idiots. There is no point to this argument exept for a dig or slap in the face on the other side. I personally don't think there is anythign wrong with that, 'cause I do it all the time. But to subject yourself to the other side's ridicule is moronic. Ergo, the lack of coservative points of view in this thread.

Like I said, if you can look past Kerry's transgressions of the past, then I can look past Bush's transgressions of the past.

What! you don't support kerry? Your not supporting the troops? That bumper sticker ribbon on your car is just a lie then? Please God say it aint so. Well you sir are very unpatriotic if you don't support your troops, no matter what atrocities they commit!


/sarcastic jackass mode

 

[Kommie]

What kerry commited war atrocities, links please.

Yes and no, He Did do some awful things such as use illegal machine guns (the 50cal I think), He burned villages while on search and destroy and while in free-fire zones, Which was what you were supposed to do. So he did do some "bad" stuff but it is what he had to do.

 

[^Ben]

While George was posted at a nice comfy air base that only the rich kids went to and did jack all for his country GG!

 

[Absinthe]

Bodacious, you're missing the point.

He claimed that SS was in a crisis back in the day. SS turned out to be A-OK. Why should I believe him this time around?

 

[The Mullinator]

Bodacious, you're missing the point.

He claimed that SS was in a crisis back in the day. SS turned out to be A-OK. Why should I believe him this time around?

He is a politician. This is what politicians do. If you think Bush is special for saying stuff like this then you probably don't follow politics very much. Pretty much any politician who can become a viable presidential candidate is willing to say crap like this at any time in their careers to get power and/or get elected.

 

[No Limit]

Ok people, please take everything Bodacious says with a grain of salt, he is using crappy Republican talking points that have been discredited a long time ago. Let's start with the 'atrocities':

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Now, I don't expect Bodacious to comprehend what that means after I highlighted what he is talking about so let me go over this sloooowly for him. All the things Kerry talks about were US policy, it was LEGAL to do in the US Army and he was ORDERED to do it. However, he felt, as every sane human should, that these were 'atrocities' even if the government didn't consider them 'atrocities'. This is no different than people saying that sleep depervation in Iraq is an atrocity eventhough it really isn't by law and our soldiers are ordered to do it. This also clearly explains why Kerry wanted to leave Vietnam so soon, he could take being ordered to participate in these things. I don't think most of you will have a problem udnerstanding this but I know Bodacious will. Atleast the sane people here will now know what Kerry was talking about.

 

[Tr0n]

He is a politician. This is what politicians do. If you think Bush is special for saying stuff like this then you probably don't follow politics very much. Pretty much any politician who can become a viable presidential candidate is willing to say crap like this at any time in their careers to get power and/or get elected.

QFT.

6charlimit

 

[No Limit]

I don't get it. What do you want a right winger to say? That back when Bush said that the economists of the time thought SS would be in crisis? Yah right. For all I know Bush was a coked out alcoholic moron back then. That and I don't have any economic data on SS back then, so who am I to comment seeing as how I wasn't even born until '82?

Despite what you people think conservatives aren't morons or idiots. There is no point to this argument exept for a dig or slap in the face on the other side. I personally don't think there is anythign wrong with that, 'cause I do it all the time. But to subject yourself to the other side's ridicule is moronic. Ergo, the lack of coservative points of view in this thread.

Like I said, if you can look past Kerry's transgressions of the past, then I can look past Bush's transgressions of the past.

The point is that Bush said back then, with no real evidance, that social security should be put in private accounts or there will be a crisis right around the corner. He is now saying the exact same thing to scare you in to it. If I sell you a lemon today you won't ever buy a car from me again, right? If you don't see the exact correlation between the 2 events there is no hope for you.

 

[satch919]

Kerry did some terrible things during the Vietnam war. However, thats war right? You guys seem to dismiss the unecessary loss of life in Iraq but once it comes to John Kerry, ITS AN OUTRAGE!!! Nothing ever changes. We shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

Some people say that Kerry would have acted like a pussy if he was in office when 9/11 happened. This guy was in a fricken war!!! He's probably stronger mentally than Bush. But it doesn't take a genius to figure that out does it?

 

[Absinthe]

He is a politician. This is what politicians do. If you think Bush is special for saying stuff like this then you probably don't follow politics very much. Pretty much any politician who can become a viable presidential candidate is willing to say crap like this at any time in their careers to get power and/or get elected.

So... You're pretty much agreeing that he shouldn't be trusted?

 

[Bodacious]

Now, I don't expect Bodacious to comprehend what that means after I highlighted what he is talking about so let me go over this sloooowly for him. All the things Kerry talks about were US policy, it was LEGAL to do in the US Army and he was ORDERED to do it. However, he felt, as every sane human should, that these were 'atrocities' even if the government didn't consider them 'atrocities'. This is no different than people saying that sleep depervation in Iraq is an atrocity eventhough it really isn't by law and our soldiers are ordered to do it. This also clearly explains why Kerry wanted to leave Vietnam so soon, he could take being ordered to participate in these things. I don't think most of you will have a problem udnerstanding this but I know Bodacious will. Atleast the sane people here will now know what Kerry was talking about.

I repeat:

Just because everyone was doing it doesn't justify him committing atrocites. Just because he was ordered to do so as you claim does not justify him committing attrocites. If you follow the logic you preach then the soldiers at Abu Grhaib who said they were ordered to commit atrocites are innocent. That logic is flawed as you can see.

Also, it wasn't legal for him to do it. Show me how those atrocties were within the legal limitation of the geneva conventions at the time. Just because the army says its legal doesn't make it legal. Show me where the army said it was legal.

Last, just because military personnel are ordered to do something doesn't mean they can't refuse, especilally if the individual thinks it is wrong, such is the case with burning villiages, free fire zones, etc, and as you pointed out above of Kerry disagreeing with being orderd to do those things. There was nothing stopping him from refusing to participate.

 

[No Limit]

Just because everyone was doing it doesn't justify him committing atrocites. Just because he was ordered to do so as you claim does not justify him committing attrocites. If you follow the logic you preach then the soldiers at Abu Grhaib who said they were ordered to commit atrocites are innocent. That logic is flawed as you can see.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 You are comparing Abu Gharib to what Kerry did? Ok, I will attempt to explain this one more time, if you don't see where you made a mistake you are officially an idiot. Abu Gharib was NOT part of published US policy. What happened in Vietnam was. Meaning what happened at Abu Gharib was illegal, what happened in Vietnam was legal. So yes, it does justify it. Do you understand this???

 

[No Limit]

Also, it wasn't legal for him to do it. Show me how those atrocties were within the legal limitation of the geneva conventions at the time. Just because the army says its legal doesn't make it legal. Show me where the army said it was legal.

Do you understand that a soldier can not disobey published US policy? If he does he will be court martialed. Simple as that. So yes, he did have to do it and yes it was legal for him to do it. However, it was illegal for the government to have such a policy.

 

[Bodacious]

Bodacious, you're missing the point.

He claimed that SS was in a crisis back in the day. SS turned out to be A-OK. Why should I believe him this time around?

No, I am not missing the point. I understand the message completely. I just don't give a damn about the point.

I'll use the same argument Kerry supporters use when justifying his committing attrocites:

Times have changed and he is a different person now. I am sure he regrets saying what he did and knows now that it was over the top. But as I said, times have changed and the world is a different place than it was 30 years ago.

See how that point fits both issues?

I am not saying you should trust Bush now. If that is what you want to do, go right ahead.

 

[Bodacious]

Do you understand that a soldier can not disobey published US policy? If he does he will be court martialed. Simple as that. So yes, he did have to do it and yes it was legal for him to do it. However, it was illegal for the government to have such a policy.

Have you been in the Military? No? Well I have. If Kerry so strongly disagreed with comitting atrocities why did he not refuse? Disobeying an order won't land you in jail for life. It is 6 months and a discharge if not a discharge by itself.

No, it wasn't legal for him to commit atrocities. If you think it was legal at the time, give me proof that what Kerry described himself as doing was legal according to the geneva conventions. You said it yourself, "it was illegal for the government to have such a policy."

So on one had it is ok but in the greater scheme of things its not? Do you not see the flawed logic in that?

Atrocities are never ok, no matter when how or where.

 

[Bodacious]

Abu Gharib was NOT part of published US policy.

And you think the burning of villages was part of the US policy at the time? You think the My Lai massacre was part of the US policy at the time? Yah right.

 

[No Limit]

Have you been in the Military? No? Well I have. If Kerry so strongly disagreed with comitting atrocities why did he not refuse? Disobeying an order won't land you in jail for life. It is 6 months and a discharge if not a discharge by itself.

No, it wasn't legal for him to commit atrocities. If you think it was legal at the time, give me proof that what Kerry described himself as doing was legal according to the geneva conventions. You said it yourself, "it was illegal for the government to have such a policy."

So on one had it is ok but in the greater scheme of things its not? Do you not see the flawed logic in that?

Atrocities are never ok, no matter when how or where.

OK, I'm done. There is no helping you. You think that he should have ended up in jail instead of obeying an order. You won't admit this was part of their policy (even though it was, S&D missions smart one). You won't address the fact he only stayed in Vietnam 3 months because of these missions and you continue to side step a simple point while repeating the same old stupid talking point.

At least there are a number of logical people on this board.

 

[No Limit]

And you think the burning of villages was part of the US policy at the time? You think the My Lai massacre was part of the US policy at the time? Yah right.

Search & Destroy, ever heard of it? For some reason I am having a hard time believing you were in the US military.

 

[Bodacious]

Search & Destroy, ever heard of it? For some reason I am having a hard time believing you were in the US military.

Want me to scan my DD214?

My Lai massacre, ever heard of it? Do you even know who Lieutenant Calley is that Kerry refers to?

 

[Tr0n]

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing (or whatever bush is wanting to do with it) SS?

 

[Bodacious]

OK, I'm done. There is no helping you. You think that he should have ended up in jail instead of obeying an order. You won't admit this was part of their policy (even though it was, S&D missions smart one).

If you think what happened at My Lai was "part of their policy" then you are sadly mistaken. My Lai wasn't an S&D mission. It might have started out that way but it didn't happen that way.

You won't address the fact he only stayed in Vietnam 3 months because of these missions and you continue to side step a simple point while repeating the same old stupid talking point.

It might be foreign to you but if you disagree with something do you play along at first, knowing it is illegal, and continue to participate? No, you stand by your convictions. You do what is right. Atrocities aren't right. I woudl endure jailtime for refusal to commit atrocities.

At least there are a number of logical people on this board.

And who are they? I have only seen one person who has weighed in on whether or not Kerry committied atrocities and that poster said, "yes and no."

 

[No Limit]

If you think what happened at My Lai was "part of their policy" then you are sadly mistaken. My Lai wasn't an S&D mission. It might have started out that way but it didn't happen that way.

Why the hell are you bringing up My Lai? We are talking about what Kerry participated in. This is what you do, I want to discuss social security you bring up Kerry's vietnam record, I want top talk about HIS record you bring up My Lai, what the hell is wrong with you? Honestly.

It might be foreign to you but if you disagree with something do you play along at first, knowing it is illegal, and continue to participate? No, you stand by your convictions. You do what is right. Atrocities aren't right. I woudl endure jailtime for refusal to commit atrocities.

If you were truly in the military you would know what bullshit that is. You do as you are told, especially when it is PUBLISHED US POLICY to do so.

And who are they? I have only seen one person who has weighed in on whether or not Kerry committied atrocities and that poster said, "yes and no."

Maybe because I only posted my rebuttle of your idioitc talking point just now.