published Saturday, August 18th, 2012

Going Negative

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

97
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Jack_Dennis said...

Sounds about right.

August 18, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha.

Gonna cut the deficit in half in four years...This stimulus bill will keep joblessness under 8% and bring it down to 6% in four years...We'll negotiate on C-Span...You can keep your insurance...The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...Issues and serious criticisms Mr Bennett mostly ignores. (Deficit is up, stimulus was 100% worthless and joblessness has been over 8% ever since it was passed, the lady with the pants said we'd have to read the bill to find out what was in it, is it 20,000,000 have lost their insurance?, President decides what laws he'll enforce and what not...and none of this has anything to do with our President's skin being lighter than that of Alan Keyes, for whom I have been known to vote.)

Foreign-born I don't believe, though one SPECULATION about why our "transparent" President is hiding his school records is that he MAY have told colleges he was born in Kenya. Socialist may be technically true--which of the ten points of the Communist Manifesto have our President or Gov Romney flatly repudiated?--but who cares? (The problem with the government moving around is not just a money problem, but a power problem: moving money around moves power to the government, away from the people the government is supposed to work for: "destroying freedom," or at least reducing it.) Food stamp president, compared to other presidents, he is. Nasty, like cartoonist Bennett and many other liberals and some conservatives, he often is: alligator moats, bitter people clinging to guns and religion (Aren't you a Christian yourself, Mr President?)

Repent. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat once, so there's hope for you too.

August 18, 2012 at 12:26 a.m.
raygunz said...

Good one Clay!! I mean, hawhawhawhaw!

August 18, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ROMNEY WATCH a continuing series

Romney's very first political TV ad, after he kicked off his latest presidential campaign, was a blatant lie. Not a little white lie. A big fat stink bomb of a lie which makes Mitt Romney a dirty rotten liar.

It first aired November 22, 2011, and featured a clip of Obama saying, "If we talk about the economy we're going to lose."

The ad implied that Obama thinks the economy is so bad he'll lose this election unless he can shift the campaign focus elsewhere. Unfortunately the clip was from a New Hampshire speech in October in 2008.

Here's the original quote in context.

"Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time, even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent's campaign announced earlier this month that they want to ‘turn the page’ on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead," Obama said in the speech. "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"

The Romney campaign did not apologize. They openly admitted taking the President out of context. That, apparently, was their obscure point. PR spokeswoman Gail Gitcho acknowledged that, "Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’" She went on to say that Obama was ironically doing the same thing today.

How 'bout them bat crap crazy republicans! And every ad includes this tag: I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

What a buffoon.

What a dirty rotten liar.

August 18, 2012 at 1:25 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Yes,the socialist/communist/marxist/muslim/success-hating/wealth-hating/freedom-crushing/Kenyan-born president is now slinging a little mud at choirboy Mitt and the sweet-as-candy conservatives are all aghast that their little darling should be so unfairly treated. Oh, the horrors!

August 18, 2012 at 1:35 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ROMNEY WATCH a continuing series

Last Friday Romney made this comment during an interview with Chuck Todd:

"Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues. And that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, that this is just divergent."

During the primary Romney pounded the idea, ‘I spent my life in the private sector,’ constantly, right? He said, “The private sector is where I made my mark.”

He knew business, he knew how to create jobs, and he was the right guy for the White House based on his career as a successful businessman.

So why does he want his business career suddenly off-limits? What else does he have to run on? The Olympics? His one failed term as Massachusetts Governor?

And he wants taxes off limits, too? Really?

I guess he can’t defend a bigger tax cut for wealthy folks and higher taxes for working families.

Don’t feel bad little tea baggers. Mitt can't defend trickle down economics either.

What a buffoon.

August 18, 2012 at 1:41 a.m.
alprova said...

I'm not going to attack Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan in this post. I am going to point out a simple fact that is related to their plan to cut taxes even more, as a means by which to 'foster job creation.' It is a plan that is not supported by any measure of success.

I'm in no manner blaming GWB for the economic situation that this country faces today or for the lack of jobs created in the private sector while he was in office, but GWB is one of many Republicans who has sold the American people on this farce that tax cuts for the wealthy helps create jobs for the middle class.

Job creation during the first four years GWB was in office was a pitiful one-half of one percent. During his final four years, job creation was a negative eight-tenths of one percent. Those tax cuts stimulated a negative one-third of one percent job growth rate over the eight years that he was in office.

His tax cuts have been preserved during the first four years under Obama, and although job creation has definitely taken a positive turn north of the zero line, as of June, we are now at a positive eight tenths of one percent for the three and a half years.

This means that during the last eleven years, job growth has averaged exactly one-half of one percent.

Now cutting taxes for this nation's 'jobs creators' is the jobs plan that the Republicans have consistently presented to the American people. How many times have key Republicans stood in front of a camera and stated that cutting taxes is the way to create more jobs?

This is clearly a failed policy promoted, implemented, and passed by Republicans, and it continues to be a failed policy that has been in place for more than a decade.

Both Republican candidates running for the top two positions of elected office are throwing this same failed policy out there as if there were some proof that it will work and that it will magically transform the economy if they are elected.

If President Obama is to blame for any failed policy that has hurt this economy and that has contibuted to deficit spending because it has absolutely depressed revenue flowing into the Gov't coffers, it is for not doing more to rescind this Republican policy of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans implemented under the guise that doing so creates jobs.

Do any of you Republican cheerleaders ever take so much as an hour of your time, once per year, to verify anything to assure yourselves that the Republicans are not blowing smoke up your hind ends?

August 18, 2012 at 4:16 a.m.
EaTn said...

After a sobering reminder of the prior right-wing "swift boat" elections, the Obama team decided to not fight this election with one hand tied behind their back. Elections are won like most athletic games are won--playing defense don't put points on the scoreboard and the fans don't want to see their team finish with clean uniforms.

August 18, 2012 at 5:52 a.m.
rolando said...

See today's Mallard Fillmore at http://www.seattlepi.com/comics-and-games/fun/Mallard_Fillmore/. 'Nuf said.

The Usurper-In-Chief, The Obama, has no record to speak of -- none he wants made public, anyway -- so the only thing he has left is negative attack-dog tactics. But he will win in November, no doubt, one way or another. Can't wait to see who he picks for his successor to his dictatorship...

Have fun, y'all...

August 18, 2012 at 6:08 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Andrew - there is no message of salvation in the Republican platform. Christ spoke of selfless love. Ayn Rand spoke of self love. Self love is a good for oligarchies but it is not a formula for a healthy democratic republic.

August 18, 2012 at 6:34 a.m.
EaTn said...

rolando...good to see your misguided comments this morning. I sure miss the days of sharing personal opinions rather than regurgitated blogs.

August 18, 2012 at 6:41 a.m.
cactus said...

Obama knows nothing about being in charge of a country. He has never been in charge of anything, including a lemonade stand.

August 18, 2012 at 6:44 a.m.
rolando said...

And that is pertinent to Andrew's post in what way, MTJ?

You have no comment in rebuttal to the real points he made?

Didn't think so.

The Obama's record is all negative...although, as alpo pointed out, he DID continue/adopt many of RINO Dubya's 2nd term actions.

August 18, 2012 at 6:44 a.m.
rolando said...

Here's a factual incidence of The Obama's "forced-in-self-defense" negative attack-dog campaign.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/17/protester_spits_on_romney_supporter

August 18, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
rolando said...

Here's a factual incidence of The Obama's "forced-in-self-defense" negative attack-dog campaign. He is desperate.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/17/protester_spits_on_romney_supporter

August 18, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
rolando said...

Oops. Haven't done that in a while.

Mornin', EaTn. What part of my post did you find "misguided"? You don't think The Obama will win, one way or the other?

Or do you see Mallard as being a blog? He is merely a political cartoonist, no more nor less than Clay.

August 18, 2012 at 6:53 a.m.
Livn4life said...

YOU are one Sad Little Man Drawboy!

August 18, 2012 at 7:02 a.m.
EaTn said...

rolando...no, just that I always enjoy your and other opinions that I don't always agree with. Anything else I can read on Fox or the Huff.

August 18, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
rolando said...

I left here [and probably will again] because of the numerous vitriolic personal attacks posted between and against fellow posters. Both sides were guilty [I found myself doing it]. Intolerance was rife. The interchange of opinions was stifled and/or "shouted down".

I, too, have always enjoyed our conversations and, as with you, I don't always agree. Interestingly enough, I am finding huffpost to be rather middle-of-the-groundish on some topics.

August 18, 2012 at 7:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, I could not agree with you more. If I wanted to see the ugliness that flies around here on some days I'd work in a football locker room.

On the cartoon: Fox isn't always negative. They haven't said a thing about their darling David Barton being taken down by 25 conservative Christian scholars nor that his latest book Jefferson Lies was withdrawn by the publisher.

August 18, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.
EaTn said...

When I get to the point of listening, reading and watching too much news and commentaries that reflect my own views, I like to remember the line from General Patton engaged in battle with his adversary Rommel, ( ...,.....,.....).

August 18, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
conservative said...

Is Owebama a Socialist?

Well, you might be a Socialist when you state that your vision for America is one where “prosperity is shared.”

You might be a Socialist when your goal is to "spread the wealth."

You might be a Socialist when you speak of "spreading the corn" at a campaign rally.

August 18, 2012 at 8 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Charges are being filed against the a$$hole who left his German Shepard stranded and wounded in the mountains in Colorado, and rightly so. Kind of reminds me of the Romney mindset regarding animals they "own" (like Seamus). Jesus, I wonder if they 'keel hauled' poor Rafalca on the way back from the Olympics?

August 18, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

"By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?"

"By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/

August 18, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Conservative - given our nation's history, including the era of McCarthyism and the long cold war, the word, "socialist", carries a negative connotation that is not consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. And, it is that negative connotation - not the dictionary definition - that is inferred whenever the right-wing megaphone calls President Obama a socialist.

August 18, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said..."And that is pertinent to Andrew's post in what way, MTJ?"

Andrew professes to be Christian and he called on the President to repent. Embracing the tenets of the Republican party and Ayn Rand's philosophy is not repentance.

August 18, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said..."Well, you might be a Socialist when you state that your vision for America is one where “prosperity is shared.” "

What's the alternative? When prosperity is no longer shared, we will be just another third world country - a country governed by a very wealthy and very small minority, while all of the rest of us live in poverty. That is not the America that I believe in. But, is you separate fact from fiction, you might discover that is exactly and that is the "comeback" implicit in the Romney/Ryan message.

August 18, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

kiethLU: Lu, I don't know about Fox. I always get the straight skinny from MSNBC.

August 18, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
conservative said...

MtJohn, "And, it is that negative connotation - not the dictionary definition - that is inferred whenever the right-wing megaphone calls President Obama a socialist."

Socialism does have a negative connotation and rightly so! The unconstitutional taking of property is theft and morally wrong.

August 18, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "The Obama's record is all negative...although, as alpo pointed out, he DID continue/adopt many of RINO Dubya's 2nd term actions."

Obama's record is hardly all negative, and I laughed out loud at the suggestion that GWB is a RINO, offered I assume to explain in some manner why his Presidency didn't live up to your expectations.

Perhaps he was a RINO, in your mind, because he didn't adopt the current Republican mantra of throwing the elderly and the poor bones and insurance vouchers to eat and to partially pay for their retirement medical expenses.

Maybe you consider him a RINO for passing prescription coverage for seniors, albeit with donut holes a mile wide, which President Obama closed nicely with Obamacare. I'm sure that you, as a concerned Republican who is ever mindful and who laments profusely about social entitlements, are currently refusing that particular benefit as one who depends on Medicare.

Ot maybe you consider GWB a RINO because he pursed his lips, put his hand to his mouth, and issued an indian war whoop, as he was leading our military into two very expensive wars that has resulted in the premature deaths of a hundred grand or so of innocent people, whose families now have even more reason than ever to hate the United States.

Given that Republicans are prone to be self-serving, coddlers of those who have aplenty, who in high numbers love to keep this nation at war somewhere in the World so that the flow of money never stops is never interrupted going to war profiteers, and who love to talk a good game of helping our seniors but fall short of the goal line routinely, I'd say that GWB pretty much toted water for the modern day Republican rather effectively.

August 18, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

"The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party."

"Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/

August 18, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said..."Socialism does have a negative connotation and rightly so! The unconstitutional taking of property is theft and morally wrong."

If that is your definition of socialism, President Obama is not a socialist because he has not advocated the unconstitutional taking of property". And, by the way, the unconstitutional taking of property doesn't fit the dictionary definition of socialism, either.

August 18, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

"The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be."

"The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/

August 18, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo: Why won't Harry's senate pass a budget? Do you not live within a budget? Do you spend other people's money with abandon never thinking of the future? How can this country possibly spend relentlessly and still be prosperous? Taxing the "rich" 100% wouldn't even put a dent in our current financial crisis.

Taxing the "rich" therefore has nothing to do with debt relief or any financial responsibility, but only to appease the liberal "fairness" myth.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/17/democrats-punt-on-senate-budget-bill-for-3rd-year/?page=all

August 18, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

45 million people now on food stamps. How many of them would lay down and starve to death if their food stamps were to vanish tomorrow? Does one need a valid I.D. to get food stamps?.....Questions...questions...

August 18, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Strange that we see so many negative comments about Obama from the right but there seems to be a reluctance from them to point out the positives of their candidate and why they support him. C'mon guys, quit trashing and start pointing out your candidates positives.

-Perhaps they are embarrassed by RomneyCare and his support of the individual mandate? -Perhaps his stance on abortion when he said "I will protect the right of a woman to choose" during his run for governor in 2002? -Perhaps his support of assault gun ban and support of the Brady Bill? -Perhaps his lack of job growth as governor? -Governor of one of the most liberal states in the U.S.? -Mormonism? A convicted con man who started the religion?

Guess its hard for the right to spin Romney. Better to just bash Obama.

August 18, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

Now we get to the similarities :

"The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:"

"PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements."

"Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state."

August 18, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

hotdiggity: I LOVE it when you hypocritical lefties knock Mormons. Amazing, coming from you broadminded, all inclusive, intellectuals. And freakin funny, too.

August 18, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Romney created more jobs than Obama ever did. Romney understands how capitalism works. Romney loves the U.S.A.. Romney created his own wealth. Romney knows how to lead as an executive. Romney understands the limitations of government. Romney also has stated that "Romneycare" would never work on a national level. And, Romney isn't Obama.

August 18, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Your turn hotdiggity. Start pointing out Obama's positives. Please start with the last four years of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity he has given us.

August 18, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

"The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:"

"PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life."

"Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail)."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/2/

August 18, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

And I'll tell you just how bad the press has gotten. Soledad O'brien actually questioned Barbara Comstock with questions from the liberal blog "The talking points memo". A well-known liberal blog. The great un-biased media.

August 18, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova said.... Do any of you Republican cheerleaders ever take so much as an hour of your time, once per year, to verify anything to assure yourselves that the Republicans are not blowing smoke up your hind ends?

I am aware that they are attempting to do that as are the democrats. Between them we are all likely to suffocate from the constant flow of smoke from two directions. I still don't see anyone offering effective solutions to a save bankrupt medicare/medicaid programs or to avoid the same issue with social security in the next decade or sooner. The current and soon to be social security/medicare/medicaid participants are the most selfish and greedy generation in history. They benefited from the prior generations hard work, military service and sacrifice and are now are living off of borrowed money and the military service of the countries younger folks with the debt to be paid by young workers and future generations.

Don't give me that crap I paid in so I deserve it. Anyone receiving social security benefits more than 10 years have drawn more than they put in while medicare/medicaid pays out over 40 cents of borrowed money with each claim dollar. The actuarial tables have increased, benefits have increased without comparable adjustments to funding them. That is not smoke blowing but facts.

August 18, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Harp: Don't knock the current recipients. They DID pay into a system that time and again was ignored by the politicians. Paul Ryan has the stones to work at salvaging the system, but is castigated by the left. (they think they have the moral ground here)....The left has ZERO solutions except to say the pubs are throwing granny over the cliff. Seems to me we need more pols with some testes like Ryan.

August 18, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
jesse said...

Hey harp!! Here's some crap for ya!! i'm 72 years old.started payin into social sec,in 1957,semi retired in 2001!(still payin intos.s.! I'm prob. on the cusp right now of drawing more than i paid in(plus interest!) WTF am i supposed to do?EAT A BULLIT ! F.D.R made a promise to the nation when the gov.started takin s.s. taxes out of our payday! Isn't our fault they couldn't manage right so it would work! Now the trust fund is BUSTED and has a buncha I.O.U.'S that ain't worth the paper they are written on!

August 18, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
fairmon said...

jesse said....

Hey harp!! Here's some crap for ya!! i'm 72 years old.started payin into social sec,in 1957,semi retired in 2001!(still payin intos.s.! I'm prob. on the cusp right now of drawing more than i paid in(plus interest!) WTF am i supposed to do?EAT A BULLIT ! F.D.R made a promise to the nation when the gov.started takin s.s. taxes out of our payday! Isn't our fault they couldn't manage right so it would work! Now the trust fund is BUSTED and has a buncha I.O.U.'S that ain't worth the paper they are written on!

In your case and those 55 and older do nothing. But, do something to stop the bleeding or those under 55 will have nothing to draw. When FDR set it up the average life expectancy was in the 60's and is now in the 80's. FDR didn't provide for the spouse to draw on the hubby and get the husbands amount if he passed on before her plus various other vote buying liberalizations that were not funded when passed. The dilemma is you can't fix it and get elected so congress avoids it like a plague.

August 18, 2012 at 12:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

Jack_Dennis said...

Harp: Don't knock the current recipients. They DID pay into a system that time and again was ignored by the politicians.

I agree, see response to jesse above.

August 18, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
jesse said...

Well i woukda done sumpin this goround but both parties decided to run a coupla stumblebum idjits for pres. and we got a congress that spends all thir time gittin re elected w/none left over to run the Nation so i guess i'll just have to ride it out! The time to bite the bullit and fix it was back about 1960 !now it's prob.too late w/o measures like Ryan is proposing AND THAT AIN'T EVEN GONNA FLAP IT'S WINGS!!

August 18, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.
cactus said...

Obama wrote his thesis at Harvard that promoted the principles of Marxism as the fairest way to govern the United States.

August 18, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

jesse & harp....if you look at the utter fools we have in both houses of congress, it's no wonder we're in a pickle. you see some absolute buffoons. until the voters insist on term limits and limited congressional pensions, we will continue to see gaggles of fools in congress. fools with no will to really address issues.

August 18, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
miraweb said...

I have to admit, if Romney scheduled a five minute phone call for advice from Karl Rove (or maybe an average six year old) each week his spinmeisters might be able to get some sleep.

His team has taken the ultimate bet. They are wagering that if they can "market" it just right, seniors won't be spooked by Ryan's truly crazy ideas about Medicare.

This is from the National Republican Congressional Committee's talking points:

Do not say: ‘entitlement reform,’ ‘privatization,’ ‘every option is on the table,’ Do say: ‘strengthen,’ ‘secure,’ ‘save,’ ‘preserve, ‘protect.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79673.html

August 18, 2012 at 1:53 p.m.
jesse said...

The u.s. a. TOOK A WRONG TURN WITH l.b.j.'S WAR ON POVERTY AND THE GREAT SOCieTY!fROM THEN ON we were doomed to fail! Lyndon Baines Johnson was the biggest disaster this country ever had! And it was all politics,he said himself "if we can get this passed the "POOR"(that ain't the word he used but!) will vote democrat for a hundred years! I often wonder where this country would be if Goldwater had won in 1964!!

August 18, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

miraweb: It's just marketing. You don't think The Messiah's advisors do the same thing? You guys made talking points an olympic event. Open your eyes.

August 18, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Jesse: I remember specifically, the dems saying about Goldwater...."If he's elected, he will send the marines to Viet Nam!! I shiz you not.

August 18, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
conservative said...

From Forbes magazine:

"Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?" - Paul Roderick Gregory

"The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:"

"PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”"

"Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/2/

August 18, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.
miraweb said...

Eyes wide open here. Giving seniors health care coupons to buy private insurance might make a small amout of sense if private insurers were actually any kind of a competitive market.

When a market is not competitive it is, by definition, inefficient. That means things cost more to buy and cost more to provide. In health care, we have both in spades.

Every measure has Medicare providing more services for less cost than our private insurers can manage on their best day. The V.A. is doing it, as well.

In a working, free market that math might be different, but that isn't the case here. Not at all.

August 18, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.
jesse said...

And in March of 1965 you know who landed in Da-Nang?LOL!

THE U.S.M.C.!!!

HEY MIRAWEB!

If you are SICK and want someone to help you die" Thats when you go to a V.A. hospital!

August 18, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Don't give me that crap I paid in so I deserve it. Anyone receiving social security benefits more than 10 years have drawn more than they put in while medicare/medicaid pays out over 40 cents of borrowed money with each claim dollar. The actuarial tables have increased, benefits have increased without comparable adjustments to funding them. That is not smoke blowing but facts."

It is not the fault of the people that the money that belongs in both of those trust funds has been mismanaged. We all have indeed paid into they systems and had the money been invested to grow, there would have been more than enough to provide benefits for everyone.

August 18, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Walden said...

REQUIRED READING FOR MY CONSERVATIVE BRETHREN:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/medicare-jujitsu_650186.html

THIS IS GREAT INFORMATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE LIBBIES' ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE MEDICARE DEBATE IN THEIR FAVOR. THIS IS A DEBATE, BY THE WAY, THAT THEY ARE LOSING BADLY.

August 18, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,The money has never been invested. It has always been a money in and money out pay as you go system doomed for failure from the start. It is a government Ponzi scheme with early retirees receiving much more that they ever paid into the system.

Ida Mae Fuller was the first recipient of Socialism Security.She paid $24.75 in Socialism Security taxes and received $22,888.92 in benefits before she died at 100 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/how-social-security-really-began-echoes.html

August 18, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
rick1 said...

Conservative, you are spot on here is another example of how congress continues to raid social security.

In 2009 and 2010 Congress enacted four provisions authorizing implicit or explicit transfers of general revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund, continuing a pattern set by earlier provisions.

Social Security’s raid on the general treasury has largely escaped attention. Indeed, in a startling inversion of reality, the general treasury is often accused of raiding Social Security, based on the premise that the $1.7 trillion of surplus Social Security taxes collected from 1984 to 2014 have been looted from the program. In reality, current law provides that the surplus taxes will be paid back to Social Security more than fourfold (reflecting compound interest), enabling the program to pay $7.2 trillion of benefits in excess of taxes from 2015 to 2037.

Although general revenue financing averts Social Security tax increases and benefit cuts, it forces larger tax increases and spending cuts in the remainder of the federal budget. Using the general treasury as a piggy bank for Social Security distorts the budgetary process by giving the program the best of both worlds. Social Security receives political protection from tax increases and benefit cuts on the grounds that it is a self-supporting program financed by earmarked taxes, but it is not required to actually live within its earmarked revenue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260503/social-security-and-general-treasury-whos-raiding-whom-veronique-de-rugy

August 18, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
tderng said...

Walden...good article,hits the nail right square on the head!

August 18, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Walden, I read the entire Weekly Standard article. If you and other conservatives think you are winning the Medicare debate, or stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning it in the future, you are sadly mistaken. I can't wait for the first time this comes up in an actual debate.

The Ryan plan will be seen for the mere band-aid that it is. It does nothing to address the runaway costs of health care on the private end, and the government could not sustain for long the constant increases in premiums that would inevitably arise. It would be like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. It's nothing but a feeble attempt to incrementally move our senior health care completely from the public sector to the private.

Furthermore, it will be easily shown that the funds that Obama plans to cut from Medicare will NOT affect the actual health benefits of seniors at all but will be applied successfully towards the Medicare Advantage plans, where the excessive subsidies ended up costing the government more than they were worth. Medicare Advantage was Bush's own attempt at incrementally privatizing Medicare and those plans were not any better than standard Medicare - and in fact I know from personal experience that sometimes they were even worse, insofar as limitations of coverage were concerned. They dressed them up to sound like cadillac plans, complete with extras like eye care and health club benefits, but they oftentimes had benefit exclusions that standard Medicare did not.

Go ahead and feel giddy, if you want, thinking that Romney/Ryan and the Repubs are going to win this debate. But seeing as how the focal points of their plan are nothing but band-aids and a house of cards, it won't take much for the Dems to blow it all away.

August 18, 2012 at 4 p.m.
agreenwood1990 said...

Romney and Obama both are liars and are both on track to run this once great country into the ground. Each and every day we lose a bit more power as a country, a bit more freedom as an individual, and more and more of your tax dollars, republicans taking them for wars to make their profits, democrats to spend on largely wasteful social programs. As South Park once put it, "every election is between a douche and a turd sandwich." This could not be more true in 2012.

August 18, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
conservative said...

People need to come out of their stupor regarding Socialism Security:

Samuelson: Would Roosevelt approve of Social Security? - By: Robert J. Samuelson | Times-Dispatch Published: April 10, 2012

excerpt:

"All this is well-told in Sylvester Schieber's "The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System." Schieber probably knows more about American retirement programs than anyone. He has advised the Social Security system, consulted with private firms and written widely on the subject. His book shows how today's "entitlement" psychology dates to Social Security's muddled beginnings."

"Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they "earned" these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs. Indeed, Roosevelt — believing he had created a contributory program — said exactly that:"

'"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. … No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program."'

"What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement. Unsurprisingly, AARP's advertising slogan is "You've earned a say" on Social Security. The trouble is that contributions weren't saved. They went to past beneficiaries. The $2.6 trillion in the Social Security trust fund at year-end 2010 sounds like a lot but equals slightly more than three years of benefits."

With favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 TIMES their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren't), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2012/apr/10/tdopin02-samuelson-would-roosevelt-approve-of-soci-ar-1829995/

August 18, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
jesse said...

Consevative! Gonna try to enlighten you a little! When the gov. takes ,over a period of 50 someodd years 75,000.00 out of my paycheck and a like amount from my employer THAT AIN"T the gov. money,IT'S MIN E! $150,000.00 over 50 years add the interest!pretty good lump if you could keep the carpetbaggers in washington out of it!

August 18, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
degage said...

miraweb,are you on medicare? When I went on medicare the out of pocket was 1800.00 now it is 5400.00 co-pays are higher and now the gov wants to know all my ills to decide if I will be a canidate for more care or time to throw in the towel. We got a call and they want to send someone to our house to ask questions. I have refused to allow it.

August 18, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
conservative said...

Jesse,sadly, when the government takes your money it is no longer yours simply because they TOOK your money. They give that money that used to be yours to current retirees.

Socialism Security has always been a money in money out pay as you go system. I hope that you get much of that money the feds TOOK from you before dramatic cuts in your check are made or before total collapse of the socialist scheme.

August 18, 2012 at 5:07 p.m.

The lack of introspection from the Right-wing continues. I wonder if they have their integrity surgically removed.

Remember when Fox got all upset about a Goebbels reference and then declared they and other Republicans never did that? Then a litany of their own examples of such comparisons from the right-wing was posted?

But hey, no need to ever acknowledge that, just keep piling on the hyperbole!

It'll serve as a nice distraction. Examples in this thread abound.

August 18, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

All of you conservatives decrying the ills and evils of social security are making the same lame-brained, retreaded snide remarks about it you've always made: it's a socialist "ponzi scheme" or a "welfare program" or it's destined to fail... blah blah blah. But it's funny how it's worked extremely well for decades, from its very inception, with people getting their checks on time and in full, practically without exception, and how it has made the difference, for many people, between living in modest comfort or dire poverty.

It is not a "ponzi scheme" because the very term implies deceit, with someone at the helm, the originator, being in the know, and everyone else on the lower rungs of the ladder eventually succumbing to the intentional flaws in the "scheme." But social security is completely transparent, with everyone knowing from the get-go exactly how the system works. And we receive updated data every year, telling us exactly how much we can expect to receive at whatever date we decide to begin receiving our pay-outs. What is so ponzi-ish about that? Ponzi = deceit; Social Security = transparent. It is no different from an insurance policy. If it weren't for the collective (there's that word that conservatives detest!) nature of insurance, with other people paying money into the system, then there would be no money available to pay out to those as they needed it. Just because today's workers are paying in to help sustain the program but they themselves won't collect until a later date, that in itself does not make it a "ponzi scheme." But I know you teabaggers are not going to see it that way. It suits your reactionary, baseless arguments all too well to think about ceasing with the silly labels that somehow make it sound like something evil.

It wasn't until congress raided the coffers of Social Security that there came to be questions about its stability. And yes, people are living longer today than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and the program does indeed need tweaking. But it is an idiotic whim of the government haters to even think about scrapping it and privatizing it. And the very ones who want to privatize it also happen to be against any kind of banking or investment regulations that would prevent another meltdown such as happened in '08. Many people lost all of their private-sector savings as a result, and if it weren't for Social Security being their last remaining safety net, they would literally be starving and/or living on the streets..or dead.

Con-man said, "People need to come out of their stupor regarding Socialism Security." I wish you teabaggers and the con-man would come out of your own stupor. But we know that's not going to happen, is it? Like a turtle in its shell, being in a constant stupor is just like home to you guys.

August 18, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
shen said...

tu_quoque said... People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press

Those individuals will still get a pretty good return, tu_q. Just think, many people will die before ever getting the chance to collect any of their retirement benefits. Whether it's from a private company or the government.

Now, here's more of the article you didn't mention: "A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

556 out of 598, ain't at all a bad deal when you think about it. Look at all those people who lost in their 401Ks when the stock market crashed a few years back, and will now have to work well past the time they intended to retire. Take those Brazilians who had a similar idea to Cain's 999 plan to allow their workers to choose between allowing the private sector to handle their retirement. Those who opted out of the government's plan had to come crawling back for the government to take up the slack, because the private sector paid themselves first plus made bad investments choices for the workers.

I have a few friends who thought they would retire happily ever after on their 401Ks alone to realize they'll be receiving only about 500 bucks a month. Can anyone really live out of 500 bucks a month?

August 18, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbous has a pair. Fox News & hyperbole? MSNBC skips hyperbole and goes direct to BS. Get a grip, Bulbs.

August 18, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.
conservative said...

tu, consider, an irresponsible Liberal/Socialist/Demoncrat would probably spend that $598,000 instead of providing for himself and family, so he would likely love having government charge him $44,000 to manage his money

August 18, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
shen said...

Bottom line is, Social Security is still a guarantee. Investing all your retirement in stock is not. Ask the Brazilians whose prviate investments were eaten up by fees and faltering stock markets, and ended up receiving only about 300 bucks a month in retirement. Then their federal government had to come after all and make up the shortage.

August 18, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu, if you are still around, it appears we again have common ground for agreement. There are some interesting stories here -- true ones since my working years from '56 to '00 pretty well match the experiences of others here.

Take care, m'lady.

August 18, 2012 at 8:21 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Tu_q, you conservatives are good at trying to rewrite history and put a spin on things to suit your specious arguments. You claim that congress never really raided the trust fund, that the lack of funds was due entirely to some inherent "instability" in the system, and it's all a liberal myth to keep people sucking from the government "teat."

I find it interesting that you don't make mention of the term "lockbox" that was so much in the news during the Clinton years. Why was there any need to even talk about a lockbox then? I'll remind you: because it was common knowledge that congress had been DIPPING INTO the surplus that was intended specifically for Social Security. There was a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats at the time about the effectiveness of a "lockbox," with many Dems claiming the only reason Repubs were for it was to make it appear that they actually cared about safeguarding the funds.

Here is a quote from the Washington Post in May of 1997: "Even though a 1997 balanced-budget deal constrains spending on defense and many domestic programs, Congress dipped into the surplus twice to finance more than $30 billion in 'emergencies' -- last fall when it passed a huge omnibus spending bill and last week when it adopted a package to pay for the war in Kosovo."

And here is a direct quote from a Republican congressman at the time, Gerald C. Weller (R - Ill.): "Washington for the last 30 years has used the Social Security trust fund as a blank check. This lockbox will prevent the Clinton-Gore raid on Social Security."

So we have a liberal paper referring to the taking of the money as "dipping into," and a Republican congressman of the time referring to it as a "raid." Either way, it is obvious you are blowing smoke with your convoluted explanation for the inherent "instability" of the program.

But you already know that....don't you?

August 18, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.
Lr103 said...

RE: *"And here is a direct quote from a Republican congressman at the time, Gerald C. Weller (R - Ill.): "Washington for the last 30 years has used the Social Security trust fund as a blank check. This lockbox will prevent the Clinton-Gore raid on Social Security." *

All SS has to do is start calling in all those IOUs.

August 18, 2012 at 10:10 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alpro said....

It is not the fault of the people that the money that belongs in both of those trust funds has been mismanaged. We all have indeed paid into they systems and had the money been invested to grow, there would have been more than enough to provide benefits for everyone.

Invested in what at what average annual return rate? You are an accountant? Do the calculation at a nominal 3-4% and see what the lump sum would be? Would it meet the cost for every recipient in the future. Keep in mind there are recipients that did not contribute anything. The original concept was those working would always contribute enough to pay the current recipients and allow the fund to grow for the increasing number in the future. However, the demographics changed and will become only three working for each recipient. Social security is not a problem for another decade or so but politicians like to lump it in with medicare/medicaid and prescription coverage.

Medicare/medicaid have never been adequately funded. A large part of health care cost increases are new technology with new treatments, improved testing plus better and new medicines.

The system is broke and needs fixing and more funding either through taxes, premiums, eligibility, other modifications or a combination of all of these. The number that did not have a living will and are kept alive with no hope of recovery artificially with new technology is huge and costly beyond belief. Takvorian provided a good and logical alternative but he was imprisoned for allowing people with perfectly good minds and logic to avoid a miserable death.

Ryan's and Obama's plans supposedly does not change anything for those over age 55.

August 18, 2012 at 10:11 p.m.
fairmon said...

Does anyone remember who co-mingled sosical security funds with the general fund?

August 18, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
miraweb said...

The census' numbers for median income are pretty telling.

If you are over 75, there is a 50% chance that your household income (including Social Security) is $25,318 or less.

If you are between 65 and 74 years of age, there is a 50% chance that your household income is $39,747 or less.

If you are between 55 and 64 years, there is a 50% chance that your household income is $56,575 or less.

The medians for the other age brackets are as follows:

45 - 54 years $62,485

35 - 44 years $61,644

25 - 34 years $50,059

15 - 24 years $28,322

Of note - the median income has dropped in every group except the over 65 year olds where it stayed steady or rose very slightly.

By far, the largest income drops were in the 15 - 24 and the 45 - 54 ranges - reflecting the great difficulties the young are having breaking into the job market and how quickly companies are moving to drop middle-aged workers.

It sounds nice to say the numbers work if we raise the retirement age, but in a tough market, that doesn't mean older workers will be able to find the jobs.

Source: U.S. Census 2010

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html

August 18, 2012 at 11:29 p.m.
miraweb said...

Looks like Ryan has decided to run with the talking points lingo:

"Absolutely, because we're the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to protect Medicare, to strengthen Medicare."

Source: Fox News

Three for three. Good poodle! Have a biscuit!

August 19, 2012 at midnight

And you know what? Most of those seniors aren't paying federal income taxes!

How dare they! The freeloaders!

August 19, 2012 at 1:47 a.m.
sandraballatore said...

Mr. Bennett, your astute political cleverness and great puffy aesthetic would serve youbetter if you raised your standards and became a real journalist, as in the good old days when journalists saw both sides. Nowadays, if you stop drinking the Obama kool-aid for just one minute, you might envision Obama shaking his big, nasty finger in the face of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, while shouting, "YOU didn't make that!" Or, you could draw Joe Biden standing at the podium, lording it over a multi-cultural audience that is all bound up in real chains. He's saying, "Y'all, how do you like dem chains?" So much insanity is all around us. You are missing the best of it.

August 20, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.