Friday - February 04, 2005

Two In A Row

We do not often do this but, what the hell, unwritten rules are meant to be ignored.

I just visited OldCatMan’s site and he has a very funny version of that old Abbot and Costello baseball dialogue.

George Bush and Condi go ‘round and ‘round.

Go. You will laugh.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Social Security Reform: Talking Points Memo

OK, you asked for it and now you’re going to get it. The battlefield is here. I am deep in my bunker, about a mile beneath Cheyenne Mountain, prepared to withstand anything, including nuclear bombs. Below are the Republican Talking Points for Social Security Reform. I received these straight from the RNC after the State Of The Union speech. Show me where they are wrong .... if you can. Try to use facts and logic and keep the name-calling to a dull roar.

1 ■ A Social Security System designed for a 1935 world does not fit the needs of the 21st Century. Social Security was designed in 1935 for a world that is very different from today. In 1935, most women did not work outside the home. Today, about 60% of women work outside the home. In 1935, the average American did not live long enough to collect retirement benefits. Today, life expectancy is 77 years.  (2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 81).

2 ■ Social Security will not be changed for those 55 or older (born before 1950). Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits and millions more are nearing retirement. For these Americans, Social Security benefits are secure and will not change in any way.

3 ■ Social Security is making empty promises to our children and grandchildren. For our younger workers, Social Security has serious problems that will grow worse over time. Social Security cannot afford to pay promised benefits to future generations because it was designed for a 1935 world in which benefits were much lower, life-spans were shorter, there were more workers per retiree, and fewer retirees were drawing from the system.

4 ■ With each passing year, there are fewer workers paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means taxes on today’s workers pay the benefits for today’s retirees. A worker’s payroll taxes are not saved in an account with his or her name on it for the worker’s retirement.

5 ■ There are fewer workers to support our retirees. When Social Security was first created, there were 40 workers to support every one retiree, and most workers did not live long enough to collect retirement benefits from the system. Since then, the demographics of our society have changed dramatically. People are living longer and are having fewer children. As a result, we have seen a dramatic change in the number of workers supporting each retiree’s benefits. According to the 2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees (page 47):

6 ■ In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.

7 ■ Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.

8 ■ And, by the time our youngest workers turn 65, there will be only 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.

9 ■ Benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. Because benefits are tied to wage growth rather than inflation, benefits are growing faster than the rest of the economy. This benefit formula was established in 1977. As a result, today’s 20-year old is promised benefits that are 40% higher, in real terms, than are paid to seniors who retire this year. But the current system does not have the money to pay these promised benefits.

10 ■ The retirement of the Baby Boomers will accelerate the problem. In just 3 years, the first of the Baby Boom generation will begin to retire, putting added strain on a system that was not designed to meet the needs of the 21st century. By 2031, there will be almost twice as many older Americans as there are today - from 37 million today to 71 million Americans in 2031. (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm).

11 ■ Social Security is heading toward bankruptcy. According to the Social Security Trustees, thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in and every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. And, when today’s young workers begin to retire in 2042, the system will be exhausted and bankrupt. (Summary of the 2004 Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 1). If we do not act now to save it, the only solution will be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

12 ■ As of 2004, the cost of doing nothing to fix our Social Security system had hit an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. (2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 58). The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be. · Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. (2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 58). · Today’s 30-year-old worker can expect a 27% benefit cut from the current system when he or she reaches normal retirement age. (2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 8). And, without action, these benefit cuts will only get worse.

13 ■ Increasing payroll taxes is a band-aid, not a permanent solution. Payroll taxes have been increased more than 20 times since 1935, and we still have not fixed the problem. The Social Security payroll tax, which was once 2%, is now 12.4%. To meet the needs of the 21st century, payroll taxes would have to be raised over and over and over again on American workers, stifling economic growth and job creation. Economists calculate that under the current system, the payroll tax would have to rise to more than 18% if our children and grandchildren are to receive their scheduled benefits. (2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees, p. 165).

14 ■ Under the President’s plan, personal retirement accounts would start gradually. Yearly contribution limits would be raised over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts. Annual contributions to personal retirement accounts initially would be capped, at $1,000 per year in 2009. The cap would rise gradually over time, growing $100 per year, plus growth in average wages.

15 ■ Personal retirement accounts offer younger workers the opportunity to build a “nest egg” for retirement that the government cannot take away.

16 ■ Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and control. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the opportunity to own an asset and watch it grow over time.

17 ■ Personal retirement accounts could be passed on to children and grandchildren. The money in these accounts would be available for retirement expenses. Any unused portion could be passed on to loved ones.

18 ■ Personal retirement accounts would be voluntary. At any time, a worker could “opt in” by making a one-time election to put a portion of his or her payroll taxes into a personal retirement account.

19 ■ Workers would have the flexibility to choose from several different low-cost, broad-based investment funds and would have the opportunity to adjust investment allocations periodically, but would not be allowed to move back and forth between personal retirement accounts and the traditional system. If, after workers choose the account, they decide they want only the benefits the current system would give them, they can leave their money invested in government bonds like those the Social Security system invests in now.

20 ■ Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

21 ■ Personal retirement accounts would be protected from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement. To protect near-retirees from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement, personal retirement accounts would be automatically invested in the “life cycle portfolio” when a worker reaches age 47, unless the worker and his or her spouse specifically opted out by signing a waiver form stating they are aware of the risks involved. The waiver form would explain in clear, easily understandable terms the benefits of the life cycle portfolio and the risks of opting out. By shifting investment allocations from high growth funds to secure bonds as the individual nears retirement, the life cycle portfolio would provide greater protections from sudden market swings.

22 ■ Hidden Wall Street fees would not eat up personal retirement accounts. Personal retirement accounts would be low-cost. The Social Security Administration’s actuaries project that the ongoing administrative costs for a TSP-style personal account structure would be roughly 30 basis points or 0.3 percentage points, compared to an average of 125 basis points for investments in stock mutual funds and 88 basis points in bond mutual funds in 2003.

23 ■ Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

24 ■ Personal retirement accounts would not be accessible prior to retirement. American workers who choose personal retirement accounts would not be allowed to make withdrawals from, take loans from, or borrow against their accounts prior to retirement.

25 ■ Establishing personal retirement accounts does not add to the total costs that Social Security faces. Personal retirement accounts effectively pre-fund Social Security benefits already promised to today’s workers and do not represent a net increase in Federal obligations. The obligation to pay Social Security benefits is already there. While personal retirement accounts affect the timing of these costs, they do not add to the total amount obligated through Social Security.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/04/2005 at 11:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Social-Security •  
• Comments (42) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Democrats Seeing Writing On The Wall?

Democrats Seeing Writing On The Wall?

Or is this just a warm-up for the judicial nominations?

The Senate overwhelmingly voted Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General. That is good news.

But the pessimist in me can’t help but wonder if this was done (after they’d threatened to filibuster it) in an effort to later say they were NOT being obstructionists when they voted Condi and ‘Berto.......as they DO, IN FACT, stonewall Supreme Court nominations.

Here’s the roll call.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Give The General A Medal!!!!!!

I LOVE the way this guy thinks!

OOOH-RAH!!!!

From the Chief of Staff on down, everyone must think this guy is a hero.  But they have to kowtow to political correctness so they “counsel” him.

I say, PROMOTE HIM!  NOW!!!  We just may have another George S. Patton in our midst.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Military • Patriotism •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

Re-Defining “Getting SHITFACED”

This story is so wrong on so many levels but my keen journalistic skills tell me you are hankering for this sort of news.

So here goes.

You like to drink.  You have a throat ailment and can’t.

Your brilliant wife (who is ever so kind and loving) comes up with the idea that it you can’t drink using your mouth you can still get soused.  So she pours 3 liters of sherry into your ass (literally.)

Of course, you die of alcohol poisoning.

Oh, she did not tell you she burned your will two weeks earlier.

Go ahead, give this one your best “one-liner” shot.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:34 AM   
Filed Under: • Science-Technology •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Hot On The Heels Of The Appeasement Accusation

In a previous post, and in so many words, I accused the Swedes of engaging in appeasement towards Muslims when they removed from exhibit a piece of erotic art that contained verses from the Koran because some ragheads complained about it.

Well, I just found this wonderful piece written by Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, in Germany. It’s in German and the translation was found here.

Hang on to your hats as he SLAMS European complacency and COWARDICE!!!! and gives credit to Americans for having the courage to do what they refuse to.

Read it all below.

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, “Europe - your family name is appeasement.” It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word “equidistance,” now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush… Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a “Muslim Holiday” in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State “Muslim Holiday” will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain’s Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European “Peace in our time”.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization’s utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those “arrogant Americans”, as the World Champions of “tolerance”, which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the “capitalistic robber barons” of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We’d rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to “Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive”.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor’s house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Patriotism •  
• Comments (20) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Go, Condi, Go!!

Go, Condi, Go!!

I love this woman!  I wonder if she’d marry me?  (stares off dreamily........)

She is now in Europe causing the Euro-weenies to get their collective panties into a very tight wad.

If anyone thought she was going to go there to make nice with them, then this visit should prove otherwise.  I may be speaking prematurely but it sure seems she is much better than Colin Powell at this game.

In typical media-biased fashion CNN (communist news network) made a comment in the article that I have yet to see the relevance of regarding this visit:

Rice’s arrival in London comes after several days of unusually upbeat news out of Iraq, following Sunday’s nationwide elections for a transitional national assembly.

Go ahead, explain to me why they had to say, “unusually upbeat?” Does that not display their obvious prejudices on the war in Iraq.  There are no lack of “upbeat” stories out of Iraq.  Our government tries to get them out but the media has another agenda----Bush bad, Iraq War bad, Saddam good.

Read more about what my next pick for US President has to say on Iran here.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 07:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Patriotism • Politics •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

I Predict………

I predict.............Philadelphia over New England by 6.

La-a-a-dies and Gentlemen:  let the shit hit the fan!!!!!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Do You Support Social Security Reform?

If so, go here. Bookmark and check back frequently to stay on top of what is going on.

Then click on this link to sign a petition directed at your senators to get the message out.

I encourage you all to pass this along to your friends and family.  Only when vast numbers of Americans contact their representatives will those pesky Democrats understand we are serious about this.  We know they are poll driven.  They know that to piss off the American public will likely get them “Daschled.”

This is your chance to do something and to do it now.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Social-Security •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Seeing Problems Where None Exist?

I sure would like to know if I am the Lone Ranger on this one.

Ford pulls an ad for an SUV due to air on Super Bowl Sunday because someone found it offensive and that it implied it made light of the priest abuse scandal.

Ford says that in audience tests none of these perceptions came out.

So am I being the overly sensitive one here in thinking Ford wimped out or did I miss something?

Go ahead, read the article.

(hat tip to Joe)

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:57 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Update On Ward Churchill

Update On Ward Churchill

The ground has been broken and it appears that Ward Churchill’s America-hating activities may come to a close at the University of Colorado.

My feet want to do a happy dance but I am telling them to wait until this review is over.

The pessimist in me thinks this ass-scab will get off with some counseling or some such shit and then be allowed to return to infest the minds of young people with his tripe and drivel.  Let’s pray I am wrong.

The Colorado state senate passed a resolution condemning him for his “evil and inflammatory” comments.

One senator voted against it.

Wanna guess what party affiliation he was?  Alright, that was a trick question.  We all know.  And the answer is NOT republican or independent or libertarian.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Education •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Anyone Know Any “ARTISTES”??????

Here’s my plan:  let’s test and see just how hypocritical our leftist, money grabbing defender of the “Poor and suffering artist” types are.

Do you know any artists?  Struggling ones are best.

Get them to either paint or weld or sculpt something, anything using an image of Muhamed, Mohammad, Mohammed, or however the FUCK you spell it (I looked on the web and all manner of spellings seem to be acceptable.  hmmmm, let me propose this manner: ASSHOLE!)

Anyway, take an image of this “prophet” and dip him in shit.  Or give him a piss bath. Or stick broom handles up his ass.  Or if it’s a large statue, go for the live sex gig and pretend to have sex with it.

Then count how many seconds it takes the hand-wringing, politically correct apologists on the left shut it down.

If you blog, either link to this or post your own so we can get the word out.  I think this would make a fascinating study.

Hell, if you know people on college or ARE in college, try this yourself.  First, though, go to the student affairs director for permission and try it with Christian images.  You’ll get a few people upset but the school will do nothing.  Then do it with Muslim images.  You’ll be shut down immediately.

I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut I am right.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Muslim Appeasement

Several years ago museums in the US had very distasteful displays some of which portrayed religious icons or crucifixes either in piles of shit or in bottles of urine, etc.

Christians revolted!  They demanded those exhibits be taken down.

But they weren’t. 

In one instance when the mayor of New York attempted to intervene he was shot down by the courts.

It’s all about “freedom of expression” don’t you know?

Well, I am willing to make a bet.

If you take these exhibits to Sweden and show them, you’d have just as vocal an uprising against them.  And they STILL would not be taken down.

But show an exhibit of erotic art with verses from the Koran in it and BAM!!! faster than you can blink they are removed because some ragheads complained.

When will these Euro weenies learn that you can not appease these goat fucking bastards?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:38 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Have Any Of You Heard About This?

Thanks to Mike at Ramblings’ Journal I found this little time-bomb about the Eason Jordan, the big guy at CNN, claiming that US soldiers not only killed 12 journalists but actually “targeted them!!”

Damn!  That’s a pretty serious charge but I must have missed the story.

The original article is here and it took place in Davos (of all places) likely a spot he figured he could get away with such outrageousness since so many attendees there hate America and would never question him.

But some people did.  The result?

“Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a “very brave man” for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.”

This is very disturbing.  Who can help me out here?  How did I miss this?

One more thing: personally I am not opposed to US soldiers targeting some of these “journalists.” They’d be doing us a favor.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/04/2005 at 06:36 AM   
Filed Under: • War-Stories •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner