Is Bush's Social Security "charade" a major diversion....

[kentuck]

from another very important story that they are doing their best to keep under wraps? Would he invade Iran to protect his own ass? Nothing is beyond this little Machivellian.

[complain jane]

1. I've been wondering the same thing.

[yurbud]

2. how would Iran protect his ass?

It would start a world war, necessitate a draft, and probably even red staters would be calling for his scalp. One of my conservative friends even seemed leery of going after Iran.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. No the right has wanted to destrouy Social Security

since it became law.. this is part of the ideology..

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I think they just keep throwing everything til it or something else

sticks. It's like having a giant tennis ball machine running the country that hurls turds at you every five seconds.

[stopbush]

5. Yes, governing through chaos. they're sure to get at least 25%

of their crap instituted while the Dems run around putting out fires.

The SS isn't a diversion from anything specific, it's just BS as usual.

[InternalDialogue]

6. Great image

Turd hurler. *guffaw*

[CoffeeCat]

8. Ok...that is one of the funniest...

...things I've read in a long time!!!!! :D

LOL!

It's so true!! I don't think they're trying to throw up non-issues to distract us from others. As you said, they are throwing up everything until something sticks. Brilliant.

So far, nothing--NOTHING--is sticking.

*s inauguration was met with unadulterated terror; it scared Pat Buchanan, for God's sakes!! His SOTU speech was flat. His social security fiasco has been wildly unpopular. Iraq is crumbling with the elections voting in those who we've been fighting against. His budget is being ripped to shreds. His own deficits have left him in a financial choke hold. Job creation is lower than expected. The dollar is disintegrating.

Scary. Aren't we about due for another PNACer "Pearl Harbor"???

[Nay]

15. HAHAHAHAHA! So true, NSMA! A great dexcription of what's

going on! Too bad so many turds are sticking. . .

[sendero]

18. you so funny

:)

[punpirate]

7. No... SS "reform" is just one more...

... aim of Bush. He ran for Congress in 1978 on getting rid of Social Security and similar right-wing stuff such as getting the US out of the UN. These are longstanding desires of his.

It's important to keep in mind a few of the things one of his instructors in graduate school said of his remarks in class--that the poor were "lazy" and other similar comments. Bush grew up in a family environment that was profoundly right-wing, regardless of how the press has chosen to heap adulation on George H.W. and Barbara Bush as moderates. At the breakfast table, these people were fascist weasels, plotting radical change.

[jdots]

9. yup it probably is.

they would love it to go thru,the stock parasites would make a killing.This is maybe a backdown bluff so they can rip more profits out of the mid east.The way they get gas prices real high then back them down alittle so everyone doesn't see that it keeps going up.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. I've thought all along that it was a diversion

He's GOT to know he won't be able to push it through.

[VOX]

11. Don't think so; SS is part of FDR's legacy, and BushCo wants to count coup

IMO, BushCo believes that if they can take down Social Security, or at least part(s) of it, then they'll perceive that they have a big green light to run amok (even more so than now) domestically.

Tampering with Social Security is a bona-fide major issue, and it represents a genuine line of demarcation -- if BushCo runs past it, then we've all entered a strange and perilous new territory.

The right wing has been gunning for Medicare and Social Security for decades now -- they breached Medicare in late 2003, with their bogus prescription-drug "benefit" -- and now they're charging hard for Social Security: the "anti-New Deal."

But they won't get it, not without a **BIG** fight.

[cthrumatrix]

12. I think it's a trojan horse for a "tax raise / tax overhaul"

[LdyGuique]

13. Actually, this is all part of "neo-liberalism" economics

Yes, it's an unforunate reality -- neocons support neo-liberalism economics -- which are classified as "liberal" because they promote no regulation, absolutely free markets, and privitization of all government programs. This is a case where using labels such as liberal and conservative go topsy-turvy.

I've been working on various topics, but especially the growing corporate world of fascism, on my blog. If you want to read more, try "Globalization = Jobs Move Overseas and Social Programs Eliminated"

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics – but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care.

REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply – again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves – then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”

Neocons' foreign policy is just as sick -- only it's about controlling the world's oil market and viewing Muslems as evil.

This sickens me to my soul as I believe that if we attack Iran, we are embarking on a dark and ugly journey with long term repercussions.

[BNW]

14. PNAC

PNAC has been advocating going after Iran since about two days after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

During the build up to the Iraq war, an insightful friend of mine said Iran was next.

The Daily Show wasn't too far off when they showed X-X-X across Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan to make tic-tac-toe. Those three would be a "trifecta" for capitalists who want economic hegemony and access to natural resources.

[Disturbed]

16. The Bush Junta wants to go back in time.

Back to the 1890's except that all the drugs that have been banned since then and now, stay banned. MJ, Cocaine, Heroin and Morphine were not illegal in 1890. Also gambling and prostitution would stay illegal. Libertarians like the 1890's, as well and would probably legalize all drugs, gambeling and prostitution.

[CWebster]

17. Partly

but I suspect it is to distract from Iraq after another of their ongoing attempts to hang the "mission accomplished" banner.

[earth mom]

19. Aren't the real "TURDS" in office?! lol

I agree with you that they are aiming lots of shit at us in hopes of diverting us from their real agenda. There will be something more important to them to come...Iran, medicare, tax reform...it could be anything. But like someone else said, Nothing they are doing is sticking and that's because * & Co weren't elected to office in the first place and consequently don't have the broad support of the majority of the public that they are pretending to have. I don't doubt that the stolen votes numbered not a few million, but rather 4 or 5 times that if not much much more.