Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I voted for Bush twice. I worked on his campain once. I think he is honest and a man of principle. I think he is the right man at the right time to lead our war against terrorism. I support his tax cuts. I supported his effort to reform social security. On the domestic front he has failed in the area of government spending. On a net basis I support him, although I am not in 100% agreement with everything he does or supports.
|
aceventura3,
How do you justify "working and voting" for that "man of the people",
much less posting about it here? Please explain how you "get around"
the following examples that cause me to react with revulsion to Bush's
lack of integrity and his "agenda". Please point out anything that is
inaccurate or untrue in the sources I cite, or why they "don't matter",
or have been misconstrued by me.
Two of my recent documentations of Bush deliberate lies related
to the 9/11 attacks and contradictions between what he stated, how he behaved
shortly before and after those attacks, versus the actual documented
record of the circumstances that he commented about. (Remember... Bush was
commenting about the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor,
and he is supposed to be the POTUS, and most of his misleading and verifiably
untrue comments are sourced from the whitehouse.gov website, displayed there
for the past four years:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...2/2957/237#237 <br>
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...2/2957/239#239
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle
Bush's Social Security Sleight of Hand
By Allan Sloan
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page D02
(Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is sloan@panix.com.)
If you read enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.
Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.
President Bush didn't mention a new proposal for privatizing Social Security in the State of the Union, but it's in his budget.
His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.
If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union message last week.
First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation.
Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."
But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.....
|
Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/...ocial_security
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent Tue Feb 7, 11:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON -
President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of
Social Security for more than 50 years and urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year-old high school dropouts.
If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade, according to administration estimates.
Any attempt to reduce Social Security benefits — no matter how small — could face intense opposition in Congress in an election year......
|