Call for a televised debate with Alan Simpson before elections
Op-ed by Rdan
The problem with Simpson’s statement about 300 million tits was not that it was sexist.
The problem with Simpson’s statement was that it was wrong as to the facts and arrogant as to the needs of most people.
The call for his ouster is another example of liberals shooting themselves in the foot by getting all emotional about hurting people’s feelings… even when they leave those feelings on the doorstep where they can be tripped over. So instead of challenging Simpson on the facts, and watching him self destruct in public, they go for the vapors and call for the nasty man to shut up or resign, so the real criminals can go back to pretending they are respectable.
Let’s call for a televised debate with the man before elections, or even after.
That is fine. I just want to hear you say that when the next 9-11 happens, the money saved will be worth it. The ONE thing the enormous waste of war money did was to move the target from the continental United States to a location in the terrorist’s back yards. Blood was shed there and not here.
I, for one, am willing to take the chance that I am not one of the 2,000-5,000 lost in the next attack. That next attack would have come in the last 9 years without our wars. We could have saved close to $1T in costs and the Great Recession may never have happened. It is a trade worth talking about.
I believe that someone tried the crash the plane idea out on a PSA flight Dec 7 1987, in which a disgruntled ex employee shot the pilots and crashed the plane. This killed 43 people. So the idea had been exercised. Actually it would have taken only a couple of changes to have made the task far more difficult. 1 Put the reinforced doors on before 9/11 that went on after.
2 instruct pilots to not cooperate, but rather, bar the door, and do an emergency landing as fast as safely possible. (Given that the flights were over NY and Ohio there were lots of places to land). One might also use some unusual attitudes to knock people over in the process. (An injury is clearly better than being dead). But of course we did not.
what you mean “we,” white man?
Since 9/11, when I fly I always check the location of the airline magazine. Rolled tightly is a decent close contact weapon, certainly I would handle a knife.
The Flight 93 citizens did just that on 9/11. One out of 4 but after 9/11 a lot of folks like me had a plan.
Better answer than mine!
The trillions are plunder of the US economy. Sustained by irrelevant fear spread by folk like logic. No usefulness.
Chm of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mullins’ input to the Quadrennial Reveiw: maintain full mobilization for two wars, at once. Wars that each look like the allied campaign in North Africa with the US Navy march across the central Pacific in WW II.
12 of the largest carrier battle groups navies, the most huge Air Force, an Army with all the formations possible, and a Marine Corps support by a dozen fleets each to deliver 800 riflemen.
One in the Middle East and one in North Asia, what fun!!
With air transport to sustain operations at the end of a 3000 mille air bridge, with no local fuel or food. (ilsm logistics analysis that is impossible and what use so far away from civilization?). Sells Boeing big planes to be worn out each 25 years hauling cabbage to Adak.
The old crocodile is ignoring the fact that his shock and awe dominant irrelevant mobilization is the main cause of the debt.
Competing for resources, not raising revenues and depleting the economy with resources going to slaughter and destruction at the exopense of industry to manufacture butter and infrastructure.
He is on the guns side and worrying about how the butter is competing…………..
How about a force that is built around not running empire in central Asia?
Less than 7% of US G outlays is a start, likely lower given the two oceans between the US and anyone who might spend more than 10% of what the US war burden. (Latin impedimentum is much better word for burden).
Nothing changes until open debate about whether two wars against no one is worth the expense of scarce US resources.
Ten times the outlays of our main creditor.
I paid into Social Security for years and still do when I work occasionally. I do not resent Simpson because of sexist remarks and the trouble with liberals is that they get diverted so easily. I know what I resent and detest about Simpson and this commission of bandits. The fact it appears that in December they want to walk away from those worthless IOU’s or until recently what was known as US Government Bonds. When they do that then Social Security is screwed, but then in January a Republican congress and Obama can make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Then they can tidy up what is left of Social Security in the name of necessity and fiscal prudence.
Well a couple of points.
One this brouhaha coupled with the 75th Anniversary of Social Security and renewed privatization talk by Angle, Paul and Ryan have served to bring Social Security to the front burner and given us an opening to talk about some of the larger issues around it.
Two Simpson let the cat out of the bag. This was never an open and honest discussion about the best options for ensuring adequate benefits going forward, it was always simply a method for devising a sales plan to cut benefits and get people to accept it as a necessity rather than a pure choice. It is kind of the equivalent of the Downing Street Memo “Intelligence is being fixed around the policy”.
Simpson and at least many of the Commissioners know what they want to do, but they also know that a straight out “Screw Social Insurance, you are on your own gramma!” doesn’t work. But before they could devise a plausible sales pitch her comes Granpa Al simplifying the above by condensing it down to “Screw you Gramma!”. Short and punchy. But for their pursposes too punchy.
Debate Question: How many boobs are on the Catfood Commision?
Debate Answer: Too Many.
Public debate rule:
If it’s more than a mouthful…it’s wasted!
Regarding your comments on econospeak, Social Security is not an insurance program.
I haved supplied quotes from a Supreme Court Case testifying to that fact.
I have also supplied quotes from the FASAB (the accounting advisor for the federal government) testifying to the same fact.
Where are your quotes to answer the Supreme Court and the FASAB?
All I get from you is your opinions and comments regarding my lack of intellect and values.
If Social Security is off budget, then why are the deficits lower due to the Social Security surpluses?
And, the 3 surpluses in the Clinton years would not have been possible without the Social Security surplus.
Regardsless of what your quote says about on and off budget, the deficit or surplus is found on a “unified budget” basis, which includes Social Security.
Opps. Don’t know why it double copied. Once is enough I think.
Answer my facts.
thanks for the numbers.
i don’t think the war will be nasty. there is no one fighting on the side of the people, and the people don’t know what is happening to them.
when i find myself saying the same thing over again in answer to the same questions over again, i figure it’s time to stop fighting with the tar baby.
my brain and emotions are all i’ve got since i lost my looks. what you don’t seem to realize is that your “citations” mean something to your brain and emotions different than what they mean to mine.
A. Hughes–My quick and dirty google search on Simpson cited his chairmanship of the Senate Committee. (I assume it was the HELP committee Teddy Kennedy chaired before his death.)
However, what I remember about his incumbency in that position was that he didn’t seem to have any interest in the SSA at all unless you call trying to destroy it an interest . If anything, he enthusiastically pitched into to aid the Reagan admin in whacking our staff while pumping up the DOD and even the Bureau of Prisons. With his help, the Reagan gang cut our staff 30% over two terms. So, when it comes down to it, the very last person I would think of as credible on SS policy is Simpson.
I have concluded that this history is his claim to his spot on the Deficit Commission. If so, then I think the President’s intentions regarding their deliberations is clear. We’ll be lucky to end up with catfood if these people have anything to say about it. And, they certainly will. NO
Reminder. Write, telephone and email your elected representatives in the Senate and the House. Saying it here is nice and good for a little interpersonal stimulation, a bit of intellectual exercise. But it is certainly far more important to say it to the people who vote in the Congress, and say it repeatedly and not in too soft a manner.