Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

346 comments

This is news? (3, Informative)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442119)

A paper in town of 46,000 people makes an endorsement? Who cares if it's Bush's 'adopted' home town?

Re:This is news? (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442191)

Somehow I don't think they like him better in New Haven.

Re:This is news? (2, Insightful)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442224)

Did you RTFA? It has nothing to do with being in a small town. It's a solid editorial made ironic by the fact its from Bush's home town.

Re:This is news? (1, Redundant)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442524)

As ironic as gor losing his home state of Tenesee and Bill Clintons home state of Arkansas in 2000?

Re:This is news? (0, Troll)

KilobyteKnight (91023) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442980)

Did you RTFA? It has nothing to do with being in a small town. It's a solid editorial made ironic by the fact its from Bush's home town.


This word, "ironic", I do not think it means what you think it means.

From m-w.com [m-w.com] :
Main Entry: irony

[edited for brevity, click the link for the whole definition]
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning

So, unless you think the paper is really FOR Bush, you misused the word "ironic". For a good example of what irony is, read some of Mark Twain's political commentaries.


[In the Galaxy Magazine]: I shall not often meddle with politics, because we have a political Editor who is already excellent and only needs to serve a term or two in the penitentiary to be perfect.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

Re:This is news? (3, Informative)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443133)

This word, "ironic", I do not think it means what you think it means...So, unless you think the paper is really FOR Bush, you misused the word "ironic".

You left out the third definition from your link [m-w.com] , which fits the use of the word pretty nicely:

3a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

One would expect Crawford's local paper to be pro-Bush. They did not -- hence the irony.

Re:This is news? (3, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442267)

A paper with a circulation of 425, no less. Nevermind the Lowell Sun endorsing Bush [lowellsun.com] , though.

--trb

Is this Crawford's only newspaper? (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442126)

I'm asking because a paper named "The Lone Star Iconoclast" doesn't sound too mainstream, and suggests pre-existing partisanship.

Rob

Re:Is this Crawford's only newspaper? (4, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442164)

The interesting thing about the pre-existing partisanship comes out in the editorial- where they go through every single instance of supporting the President going back to the 2000 campaign, and exactly how he failed in EVERY instance. In addition, I found the section on what his real campaign promises should have been to be quite interesting- and they're right, nobody would have voted for what he actually accomplished.

Re:Is this Crawford's only newspaper? (0, Offtopic)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442188)

Ah, I guess I should've RTFAed.

Rob

Quotes from various places in the article: (4, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442656)


Quotes from various places in the article:

"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda."

"He let us down."

"He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong."

"Again, he let us down."

"Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House."

People in Crawford are in a position to know George W. Bush a little better than most citizens. It seems that the newspaper is merely saying openly what a lot of people in that town think.

Also, Bush's alcoholism is a matter of importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW? [dailykos.com] . For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. [futurepower.org] Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing. Did he fall off the wagon again?

--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."

Re:Quotes from various places in the article: (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442840)

I have alcoholics in my family- the one surprising thing in that article is that Bush was seen with a Beer. I'm sure most Bush supporters would simply say "So What?", but to me, a single drink is enough for an alcoholic personality to destroy his life, his business, and take as many people down with him as possible. It's not possible for an alcholic to have "just one" drink. My grandfather, a 12-beer-an-hour drunk, was always on drink #2- he could see the one he was drinking and the empty in front of him, but had no memory beyond that.

What next? (1)

hyperquantization (804651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442137)

mass newyorkers rooting for the Red Sox?

Re:What next? (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442566)

Timidly raising hand...

N3WBI3 -- RedSox fan from NY

Bush != Conservative (4, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442155)

I think that it just goes to show, that true conservatives cannot vote for Bush. The Republican Party is no longer conservative, they are a bunch of various single-issue voters who cobble together for political strength. As the debates progress, more people will see John Kerry, not as the man Bush and his cronies has spent million to defame, but as a strong leader, who really cares about the people of America and America's place in the world. Other than a couple of retread ideas from his first campain (tort reform, etc) Bush has a campain based on attacking Kerry as weak; he cannot run on his record, so he tries to burn his opposition.

Re:Bush != Conservative (1)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442547)

Wow. Only on Slashdot can a post that upbraids Bush for not being conservative enough and lauds Kerry for being "a strong leader" be given approval rather than being laughed off the page.

Do you even know what the word "conservative" means? Can you even name three conservative values?

Re:Bush != Conservative (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442780)

I can name quite a few conservative principles that Bush has violated.

1) Fiscal responsibility. Bush has gone from surpluses to a record deficit. They have no plans for changing this.
2) Personal Liberty. The Bush adminstration has done its best to undermine the rule of law by declaring American citizens as enemy combatants and denying them trials.
3) Foreign Policy Realism. Traditionally conservatives have based their foreign policy on realistic assumptions and a narrow definition of national interest, not idealism based foreign policy. This has been horribly undermined by the Iraq War which was based on neo-Wilsonian principles of making the Middle East safe for democracy.
4) Small Government. Under the Bush adminstration the growth of discretionary domestic goverment spending has outstript the growth under Clinton. Of course the targets of the spending have typically been large corporations, but I don't think conservativism naturally favors screwing the little guy in favor of multinational corporations.

Can you state a conservative principle that Bush has upheld? The Bush adminstration is a alliance of crony capitalists and religious reactionaries. It has no relationship to what has traditionally been understood as conservative values.

Re:Bush != Conservative (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442848)

You are absolutly right, this is why I am voting 3rd party. I would like to point out that many people are voting for bush because the see Kerry as so much worse, just as most voting for Kerry are voting against Bush..

Re:Bush != Conservative (5, Insightful)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442784)

Do you even know what the word "conservative" means? Can you even name three conservative values?

I don't know about the OP, but I can make three suggestions (yes, this entire discussion may be off-topic). Note that your opinion of a conservative value may differ from mine (or anyone elses). If I were to suggest three conservative values, I would suggest the following (in no particular order):

Fiscal: Government should only spend on those key areas where it is required (National Defense, for example), and it should spend within its means.

Individual: Government's power over the individual should be limited.

Economic: Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.

Now, if we can agree that those are conservative values, George W. Bush's policies have all been in direct opposition to the above. Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs. Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).

Note that I am not saying John Kerry is a strong leader, I am only questioning how President Bush can be considered a conservative, at least by my three suggested definitions above.

How would you define a conservative?

Re:Bush != Conservative (1, Insightful)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442998)

Government should only spend on those key areas where it is required (National Defense, for example), and it should spend within its means.

That's not a conservative value. That's a libertarian value. Be careful not to confuse them.

Government's power over the individual should be limited.

Um. That's not a conservative value either. In fact, that's not a value at all; it's a normative statement. I think what you might be getting at is that conservatives value personal responsibility and equality of opportunity. But if that's the case, then you should be soapboxing in favor of Bush, not against him.

Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.

True.

Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs.

The alternative is to not cut taxes and spend millions on social programs. Abolishing welfare is not something we have the political will as a country to do right now.

Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had.

That's blatantly false.

Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).

We subsidize farmers because we like cheap food. I don't want to pay four dollars for a potato. Do you? And if you'll recall Bush lifted the steel import tariffs. As for the airlines, what would you have done? Let the industry collapse in the wake of 9/11?

How would you define a conservative?

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Conservatives believe in strong foreign policy and in not compromising national sovereignty. Conservatives believe that small business is key to a healthy economy, and that the best way to attain prosperity is to cut taxes, and the best way out of a revenue shortfall is to grow our way out by stimulating the economy.

There's no way a conservative could ever look at John Kerry and see anything other than the opposite of all that.

Re:Bush != Conservative (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442797)

Do you even know what the word "conservative" means? Can you even name three conservative values?
  1. Balanced Budget.
  2. Protecting American Jobs
  3. Not being involved in needless foreign wars.

Re:Bush != Conservative (1)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442949)

Balanced Budget.

No, that's not a conservative value. That's an economic policy goal, and it's one that not all conservatives agree about.

Protecting American Jobs

No, that's the opposite of the conservative position. Conservatives are for open markets and free trade.

Not being involved in needless foreign wars.

Careful. Your biases are showing.

Re:Bush != Conservative (1)

Dr. Smeegee (41653) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442988)

1. Lawn Care is a Holy Office.
2. Get mine now.
3. Shut up, I'm on my thinkin' chair.

Re:Bush != Conservative (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442781)

Not on all issues. Both candidate's approaches domestic and fiscal issues are classical liberal -vs- conservative approaches. For example:

Problem:
--------
Health care costs are skyrocketing, causing small businesses to suffer.

Kerry:
------
1. Raise taxes on the rich.
2. Use that to provide a tax credit to small businesses who provide health insurance to their employees.
3. Work toward universal government-mandated health care.

Bush:
-----
1. Allow small businesses to pool into larger groups to get cheaper health care.
2. Provide tax-free health care savings plans for employees (much like flexible spending accounts are today)
3. Medical liability reform to keep the lawyers out of the way.

There is a significant diffeerence between these approaches, and I think that difference very clearly outlines the philosophical differences between the parties.

Re:Bush != Conservative (2, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443016)

Allow small businesses to pool into larger groups to get cheaper health care.
you know that's not bad, too bad he has only had 4 long years, and hasn't done it yet!
Provide tax-free health care savings plans for employees (much like flexible spending accounts are today)
Again 4 long years, plus the government needs to take in some money. Bush has been giving too much of my an my child's future away to his core supporters already (huge defict)
Medical liability reform to keep the lawyers out of the way.
Tort reform was promised in the 2000 election specificly. What make you think that he will deliver this time. Fool me once same on you, fool me twice shame on me. Also the medical boards should do more work on weeding out bad doctors rather than waiting for the insurance companies to force them out (much like how someone who keeps having car accidents cannot afford car insurance).

One of the basic troubles with health care is the weather you like it or not, you are paying for the uninsured. The big trouble is that the uninsured cannot see doctor on a regular basis, so when they do have a problem they march into the ER, where they cannot be refused service, with major problems which require big money. Add to that the costs of having literly hundreds of different plans, coverages, forms, and policies, which futher burden medical administration. We need masssive reform.

Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442170)

I don't see how anyone voting for Bush is doing so based on his record, anyhow.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442204)

Can we please get some Bush voters commenting on this? Is there anything you LIKE in this president's record?

Re:Doesn't matter. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442266)

He's against letting gay people get married. Heavy appeal with the bubbas and religious nuts.

Re:Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442320)

I would gladly list my reasons for voting for him, but I would be rightly modded Offtopic and wrongly modded Flamebait, as has happened in every politics.slashdot posting I've posted so far.

This section is absolutely ridiculous...how can every story be slamming Bush? At least include the link to the Lowell Sun's editorial [lowellsun.com] that backs Bush over Kerry (from the editorial: "We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.")

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442382)

The question you should be asking is "How many right-wing stories have been submitted?" It's not like there's absolutely no one in the /. editorial staff that will post any of those submissions; that's what pudge is here for.

If you haven't formally submitted that Lowell Sun editorial yet, you should do so. That's the only way right-wing articles will get posted.

Rob

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442742)

Wow, an AC linking a FUD article.

From your link:

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.
Ahem, Bin Laden, has not been captured, and our economy is still hurting.
What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?
Ahem, Halliburton. Let us not forget that it was the Enron jet (Aerobus btw) which Bush rode to 'victory' in 2000. Now at least, he has a proper American made plane to ride to campain stops.
Americans should think back three years ago to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. There among the mist lay the images and memories of fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.

President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents. Yet some of us are forgetting.

Hold tight to that vision, because it is the only thing that Republican's can point to. FUD.

So in conclusion, your single issue (like the Lowell Sun) is Sept 11, becuase that is the only reason they list. Some hard to pin down idea about who is stronger, nothing else that it.

Re:Doesn't matter. (0, Troll)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442324)

I'm not a Bush supporter myself, but I've read a number of ardent ones, and it seems that they like how Bush has been killing a lot of brown people, and believe that that somehow makes us safer.

Rob

Re:Doesn't matter. (0)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442365)

The first issue that I vote on is how the candidate views the sanctity of human life. Bush is against abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem cell research; Kerry is not. For this reason alone, Bush will be receiving my vote.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442426)

Where do you think the leftover embryos from artificial insemination go? If they aren't used for stem-cell research, they get thrown away. The only solution is to ban artificial insemination.

Rob

Re:Doesn't matter. (4, Insightful)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442885)

No, it's much more complex than that. What you call "embryos" are actually zygotes, fertilized eggs that are frozen for possible future implantation.

Human embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, which are very young embryos. In order to turn a zygote in to a blastocyst you have to let it grow.

That's the key difference. Harvesting embryonic stem cells is, ethically, equivalent to letting a baby grow only to kill it and use it for experimentation.

Medical ethics is important. It's better to be overly cautious in the face of hard ethical questions to give time for the philosophers to catch up with the engineers.

Particularly in this case, since the results from tests involving embryonic stem cells have, to date, been so utterly dismal.

Re:Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442430)

Another single-issue voter. Congratulations on your choice. I have a question about embryos though. When you were an embryo, did you feel anything? Do you remember anything? What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?

Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442595)

When you were an embryo, did you feel anything? I dont know I dont remember

Do you remember anything?

No and I dont remember the doctor smacking my rear but Im pretty sure I was a preson when he did it

What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?

The same as still born babies

Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?

For the same reason I value babies and toddlers as much as I value already producing adults. When I was a baby I could not make choices, and was not a productive member of society (hell I know adults who are not productive) does that make them less worthy than joe cubicle?

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

redtux1 (732105) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442877)

so with your respect for the "sanctity of human life", I assume your against judicial murder ala the death penalty then?

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442676)

Another single-issue voter.
No, it's just the first issue I vote on. Put yourself in my shoes; just for a minute, pretend that you believe that fetuses are living human beings before being born. Could you possibly vote for a candidate that will uphold the right to kill these children?
When you were an embryo, did you feel anything? Do you remember anything?
No. I also don't remember anything before the age of 4. Should this have given my mother the right to stab me in the neck with a pair of scissors when I was 2?
What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?
As unpopular as it is here in the US, I am a Christian, and I am certain in my faith in Jesus Christ. Miscarriages are in God's hands, not the result of a doctor's deliberate actions.
Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?
Would you value a 5-year old's life as much as a 10-year old's? A teenager as much as a middle-aged man? A middle-aged man as much as an octegenarian? For me, these comparisons are the same as comparing a fetus to a grown man.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

KlaatuVN (213930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442491)

The man executes hundreds of people during his tenure as governer, starts a war before exhausting all the diplomatic processes, and increases the amount of pollution in the United States (which will kill more in the long run than legalized abortion).

And somehow he's managed to convince you that he views the "sanctity of life" with the same regard that you do. Please, do your homework.

--
KVN

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442755)

The man executes hundreds of people during his tenure as governer
Surely you're not comparing the execution of criminals to the execution of helpless children.
and increases the amount of pollution in the United States (which will kill more in the long run than legalized abortion).
Really? Bush personally did this? I'd like to see some facts, especially about how pollution will kill more people than abortion.

Re:Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442530)

Right... so long as no single cell humans are destroyed, who cares what happens to the fully grown ones.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442587)

Funny- that's the reason I decided that Bush wouldn't get my vote- because everything he's done on both issues has been nothing but slight of hand showboating.

First- Bush personally isn't anti-abortion, he even paid for one for his girlfriend back in 1970. He's using that as an issue to get religious people to vote for him- and he throws them bones, like the Partial Birth Abortion Bill which got destroyed by the courts, and reducing funding for sex ed programs that include abortion and birth control as options (thereby insuring that no abortionist will EVER run out of patients). He's done absolutely NOTHING to help change the society to a point where the choice of life is the only logical choice in every situation- which is what we'll need to reduce abortion (merely making it illegal will only return us to the 1960s, which had exactly the same abortion rate as today but a far higher death toll from the procedure for the mothers).

The second- Kerry rightly points out that there's no need to worry about widescale destruction of embryos for stem cell research because FETAL stem cells are a scientific dead end; all we can learn from fetal stem cells is how to get adult stem cells to change their programmed tissue types. Mitochondrial DNA Rejection will likely always prevent embryonic stem cells to be a source of spare parts for adults. So once again, Bush has pulled a fast one- by limiting to 43 lines for FEDERAL research, he's done NOTHING to stop the PRIVATE research, and he gets to showboat it for people who wouldn't vote for him otherwise.

So if these are the two reasons you're voting for Bush, may I suggest Peroutka instead? He's WAY more in line with your thinking- heck, Kerry's private thoughts on both matters are more in line with your beliefs anyway (Kerry has publically stated that no family member of his will EVER have a medically unneccessary abortion- and that life begins at conception).

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442782)

Bush personally isn't anti-abortion, he even paid for one for his girlfriend back in 1970.
Yeah, I'll bet your brother's girlfriend's cousin's roommate's uncle's barber told you that one. I also heard that John Kerry eats babies. That's right, John Kerry eats babies! It must be true, since I said it.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442938)

Actually, Larry Flynt of Penthouse fame researched it in an article he was doing in 2000 about hypocritical politicians. The same article included a story about Al Gore dumping toxic waste into the Tenassee River (since the environment was Gore's big thing). The story has been confirmed since then; but it pales in comparison to what else W was doing in 1970, so it rarely makes the news.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443105)

Well, there's always room to change your mind and/or amend your ways. Gore was anti-abortion once as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's his personal belief.

I do agree that Bush mostly pays lip service to the abortion issue, but he will pick judges that will base their decisions on the Constitution and not just pull rights out of their nether regions with vaguely-worded justifications that barely conceal the fact that they are merely establishing these so-called rights by fiat.

Speaking of hypocritical politicians, we could probably find stories of a year where Clinton didn't cheat on his wife or Nixon took someone at his word.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442813)

(merely making it illegal will only return us to the 1960s, which had exactly the same abortion rate as today but a far higher death toll from the procedure for the mothers).

Im sorry this is just a plain stupid statement on both a logical and factual basis.

There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)

On to the "theyll do it anyway", people steal cars and die in high speed chases so why keep car theft illegal... people will do it anyway.

Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.

But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443175)

There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)

Well, maybe not 1.5 million a year- but certainly above 1 million a year. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html [infoplease.com] This article suggests that the teen pregnancy rate in general has fallen since the early 1960s- and the abortion rate more so- but that was before the Bush Admin's fiscal policies induced the jump in the abortion rate that you reference (Clinton had it down to 1.3 million/year- but then again, he didn't have the tax-break-induced recession to deal with, and when the cost of a live birth pushes $2000 even with insurance vs $400 for an abortion, it's easy to see where those who worship money will be going- to the abortionist rather than the delivery room).

Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.

Among thinking individuals, there is no debate left on that issue- LIFE begins at conception, it's a biological fact that can't be disputed. Legal personhood begins at birth, but that's only because the US Constitution has yet to be amended to fit with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which in Article 2 says you can't use birth to discriminate against human beings (among other things that people commonly discriminate on).

But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..

Depending on your source, someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions could be avoided simply by making birth and motherhood have the same econimic impact as abortion and career upon the family. In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights. I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.

Re:Doesn't matter. (3, Insightful)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442722)

One thing that makes Bush popular here in the South is his opposal to the "death tax". Kerry claims that the "death tax" is to punish the rich, but anyone who's ever lived in a farming community knows that the death tax weighs very heavy on small farmers (who make far less money in a year then the land is worth). Sudenly being asked to pay 60+% of the value of your farm pretty much puts you out of business. The death tax is probably the single biggest factor in the rise of big agra-business in recent years.

When Democrats like Kerry come out talking about how eliminating the death tax was pandering to the rich. Farmers sitting at home trying to figure out how they are going to scrape by conclude that the Democrats have their head in the clouds.

I've known too many farmers get ruined by that tax to ever vote for anyone stupid enough to support it and I've got to conclude that if you can't (or won't) do simple research on this issue, you probably won't do it on others. I've even told some democrats about this problem and have met with nothing but name calling, denial, and rejection.

On a personal note, as someone who has personally spoken with many politicians on both sides I can at least say that whenever I've had a problem, the Republicans have listened and usually tried to help. I've NEVER had a democrat politician take the time of day to quit with their retoric and try and understand what I have to say.

That's not to say I don't disagree with the Republicans on many issues (I'm probably split about 50/50). But having repeated good experiences with them does influence my voting.

Re:Doesn't matter. (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442916)

Doesn't Kerry support a "Family Farm" loophole for the death tax? Of course, I'm in an area of the country where a family farm rarely exceeds 100 acres and $900,000 in value, and so family farms haven't been swallowed up as quickly by agribusinesses here.

However, having said that- there's something I could support Bush on if I was convinced that he'd do anything about it properly (that is, relieve the family farmer without putting in a giant loophole to allow all his friends to continue to hoard liquidity for multiple generations).

Re:Doesn't matter. (3, Informative)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443058)

Sorta. From the Baltimore Sun [baltimoresun.com] :

Sen. Kerry and President Bush also differ sharply on estate taxes. Under current law, the basic exclusion from federal estate taxes this year is $1.5 million. That exclusion is scheduled to rise in stages, reaching $3.5 million in 2009, while the top tax rate, now 48 percent, is set to decline in stages. The estate tax is scheduled to vanish completely in the year 2010 -- only to reappear in 2011.

Sen. Kerry favors raising the basic estate-tax exemption to $2 million "immediately," Furman says, and also setting an exemption of $10 million for a small business or family farm. The exemption would grow with inflation. President Bush wants to kill "death taxes" completely.

I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL. I get taxed on my income, I get taxed on my interest, I get taxed on profit from my property when I sell it...how many times do I need to get taxed? The fact that the estate tax is 45% is also a killer.

--trb

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442941)

Well put, its not just farmers. If yoour father bought a service station in an area and the value skyrockets, he dies you dont have the money to pay the taxes and you lose the business.

Someone buys something, works it makes it profitable (paying taxes the whole time), and when he dies the government decides to take another chunk..

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443104)

It's not just the south, it's the midwest as well. I had this ongoing argument with an ex-girlfriend about why the midwest would vote predominantly pro-Bush in 2000, and the death tax was the #1 issue, I thought. Looking at predictions [electoral-vote.com] , it would appear to be the same this year.

--trb

Re:Doesn't matter. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442281)

I am.

I vote on these issues, in this order: abortion (against it), homosexual agenda (against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay), and the character of the candidate. In this election, Bush has the edge over Kerry in all three of these categories, so I'll be voting for him.

Re:Doesn't matter. (2, Interesting)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442396)

I vote on these issues, in this order: abortion (against it), homosexual agenda (against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay), and the character of the candidate. In this election, Bush has the edge over Kerry in all three of these categories, so I'll be voting for him. Okay, so lemme get this straight:

On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:

pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.

has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.

constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.

lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.

can't admit mistakes.

Good plan.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1, Flamebait)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442555)

abortion's a Constitutional right
That's funny; I don't remember the right to kill being included with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community
Freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the process, as well as captured 75% of the leadership of Al Qaeda.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
I still have a job in the tech sector, and that's all that matters to m. I also remember getting a nice chunk of change from Bush's tax cut, and I'm definitely lower-middle class.
lets his religious views drive his policies
Good. America is running out of people with morals and values.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443005)

That's funny; I don't remember the right to kill being included with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Aren't we supposed to assume that all rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are left for the States and/or People?
Freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the process
Of course, we had a to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqis to do so, and now let's see if we can keep the country away from the hands of wouldbe warlords and dictators.
...as well as captured 75% of the leadership of Al Qaeda.
Approximately what percentage of them were in Iraq *before* we conquered it?
I still have a job in the tech sector, and that's all that matters to m.
Glad to see selfless idealism is alive and well.
I also remember getting a nice chunk of change from Bush's tax cut, and I'm definitely lower-middle class.
He bribed you with your own money, genius.
America is running out of people with morals and values.
And this has what exactly to do with Mr. Bush?

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443116)

America is running out of people with morals and values.

And this has what exactly to do with Mr. Bush?


It means that we're running out of Kerry voters.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442624)

abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress

Slavery was more written into the constitution than abortion could ever been believed to be. So I guess all those silly abolitionist in the 1840's should have shut up and accepted it as for all times legal..

What the Constitution says and doesn't say (2, Insightful)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442739)

That's odd. I don't remember the Constitution saying anything about abortion.

This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause [umkc.edu] is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.

Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.

Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443102)

> passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.

Please read my post above on the "death tax" and how it hurts small farmers before repeating this.

> such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.

This is one of Bush's biggest problems. he starts off in one possition that makes sense and then caves to pressure from the media, special interests, and other politicians.

> pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.

That statment shows you know nothing about the military realities of the situation.

Al Queda in Afganistan is hiding in very dangerous mountain terrain where providing sufficent air support is next to impossible. The mountain divisions and other special forces are still there fighting them. Putting an armored division or infantry in Afaganistan would be a huge waste of resources and serve only to risk the lives of the soldiers involved.

Invading North Korea (which you seem to be suggesting) would make Iraq look like a cake walk. We tried bi-lateral talks under Clinton and they resulted in the Korean's getting nuclear bombs. The unfortunate thing is, there isn't much we CAN do other then try to exert enough external pressure that the regeim there collapses. (and that's part of the point of the multi-lateral talks).

As for Iraq, I'll remind you that hindsight is 20/20. The consus of the intelligence community and the oppinion of the UN was that Iraq had WMD and would use them or sell them given the chance. That information may have been wrong (there are other equally plausible explinations), but at the time it was what we had to go on. The debate was what should we do about it. Try weapons inspectors again and hope it works or take the SoB out? It's easy enough for you to sit here knowing the consequenses to say you'd have done differently. But looking only at the information available at the time, you might have come to the same conclusion the President did.

The biggest problem in Iraq is that Turkey didn't help us had the 4th I.D. been able to come down through northern Iraq and meet the 3rd I.D. in Bagdad, a lot of these thugs would have been killed and a lot fewer Bathists would have escaped.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

KlaatuVN (213930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442404)

I don't usually respond to ACs, but I'll make an exception.

If you oppose the homosexual agenda because you believe homosexuality to be immoral, that's at least an argument that you can back up.

But this "against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay" business holds no water. Exactly what "special rights" are you talking about? The special benefits that heterosexuals get in tax and probate law? The special benefits that heterosexuals get in health insurance?

If you are going to argue that you are opposed to gay marriage due to civil rights issues, you're screwed.

--
KVN

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

remou (146100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442539)

"special rights for people just because they're gay"

mmmhhh, isn't it that marriage is a special right for people just because they are straight?????"

if you're a homophobe at least admit to it and don't try to cloud in some stupid 'special rights' aversion blabla

remosito

PS yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls...;-)

How do I remove "Politics" stories from Slashdot? (-1, Offtopic)

mbourgon (186257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442192)

I'm logged in, and have told it (in preferences) to skip Politics stories. But I still get them. Any ideas, anyone?

Trying to ignore politics won't make it go away ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442301)

Surely your a Bush fan, anyone who 'gives up on the Daily Show' must be...

Odd that you complain about a section which you have made posts to (real posts rather than this off-topic whining). Perhaps you are disappointed in the recent turns of the election!

Re:How do I remove "Politics" stories from Slashdo (1)

toiletmonster (722398) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443023)

i have the same problem. and i've seen posts from other people with that problem as well.

whats really weird is that i can't stop clicking on these politics links even though they're stories about insignificant garbage.

Tripe (3, Insightful)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442194)

This junk is quoted from the Democratic Party's website and framed as the independant thoughts of the editors. If you want to slam someone at least be creative about it instead of committing plagarism.

Re:Tripe (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442213)

Got a link?

Re:Tripe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442439)

Got a link?
Of course not, Republican a good about throwing out wild accusations, without even bothering to forge docuements to back it up. Often it's a just a nugget of truth then a big bold lie. Just look at Rush for example...

Speaking of Rush, did you know that he is for putting drug users in jail, even for a minor first offense, but in his defense he was most likely high when he said it.

Rush was getting his drugs from Bush's secret Camp David stash. That's why Bush is there all the time, he needs to go to Crawford regularly to make some crank in his meth lab.

Re:Tripe (1)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442556)

Try their platform (Political sites are blocked from work or I'd post a URL). Also if you don't realise that this is the democratic party's possition on these issues being quoted you've got your head shoved pretty far up....

Re:Tripe (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442631)

Also if you don't realise that this is the democratic party's possition on these issues being quoted you've got your head shoved pretty far up....

That may be true , but are those positions wrong?

Re:Tripe (1)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442750)

They are opinions and can be neither right nor wrong. They can however be original or copied. In this case they are copied and for a newspaper opinion page, which is supposed to be the home of original opinion, copied opinion should not be acceptable.

Re:Tripe (1, Troll)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442897)

The American Press is mostly a mouthpiece for the two major parties. It is very rare to find a good, objective article in most of the newspapers or on the TV.

I'm not at all suprised that newspapers would lift the text directly from the DNC website, after all, they've been lifting text from the Bush Administration for the last 3 years, the Clinton Administration before that, etc.

It's sad... (4, Informative)

Your_Mom (94238) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442198)

It's sad that the AP picks up the fact [littlegreenfootballs.com] that a paper with a circulation of 425 supports Kerry. But there is not mention that the Lowell Sun, a ciculation of 100,000+ and a major newspaper in Massachusetts, Endorses Bush [lowellsun.com] .

No Bias here. Noooooosiirrreeee.

Re:It's sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442309)

Ummm, 100k circulation in Massachusets is absolutely nothing.

Re:It's sad... (1)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442832)

By that math, the circulation of the Iconoclast is even less than absolutely nothing! So why is there a Slashdot story about it?

Re:It's sad... (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442352)

Let me know when the Boston Globe endorses Kerry.

Re:It's sad... (2, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442435)

It doesn't really have to, the Globe is known to be one of the more respectable but left-wing papers in the country, next to the LA Times. Not surprising considering Boston, and the entire state of MA, tends to be rather left-wing itself. Remember the Globe is also the paper that first fubar'd and ran all the CBS memo stuff like it was gospel.

--trb

Re:It's sad... (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442637)

I goofed. I meant "when the Boston Globe endorses Bush."

Re:It's sad... (5, Insightful)

isaac (2852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442459)

It's sad that the AP picks up the fact that a paper with a circulation of 425 supports Kerry. But there is not mention that the Lowell Sun, a ciculation of 100,000+ and a major newspaper in Massachusetts, Endorses Bush.

What makes this a story is that Bush's hometown paper endorsed him in 2000. The Lowell Sun has been attacking Kerry relentlessly since 1972 when Kerry first moved there and upset the local good-ol-boy political network. It's not "news" when the Sun publishes the same "Vote Kerry's Opponent" endorsement it's published for the last 32 years.

-Isaac

Re:It's sad... (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442701)

From your link:
He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil. Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered?
Heh. No, I can't deny that...

Re:It's sad... (1)

quarrelinastraw (771952) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443094)

Explain how there is bias. The story is newsworthy because the paper (1) is the (mostly conservative) paper in a town centered around George Bush, and (2) backed George Bush in 2000 and much of his election. Bush practically invented Crawford when he built his ranch there, and you can their websites are crawling with pictures and odes to Bush. This is a pretty frigging big news story. Your counterpoint is that a conservative paper in Lowell endorsed Bush. Well duh, it's a conservative paper, practically every town has them and they practically all support Bush (including, until recently, the iconoclast). Moreover, the story about Lowell WAS picked up by the media, despite its lack of being newsworthy. How can you possibly think these stories are similar? The fact that people in Crawford are furious should give you some indication as to why the Iconclast story is important and the Lowell Sun one is not.

Why do we put up with this? (4, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442311)

I was just wondering, why would a Newspaper or a news outlet go out and say "We're endorsing this candidate over this other one".

I mean, shouldn't they at least TRY to be non-biased about the news they report? I know I know...there is this "Liberal Media" that's suppose to pump up all Democrats and rake-across-the-coals all Republicans...at the same time there are conservative news outlets that almost try to convince us that Democrats cause cancer....but shouldn't they at least pretend to not be biased?

I want my news from unbiased..."we don't endorse anyone" kind of thing. I know, it's a pipe dream to try to find just raw news reporting without SOMEONE saying it's biased one way or another.

Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.

Re:Why do we put up with this? (1)

wind (94988) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442732)

The claim (true or not, I don't know), is that the editorial staff of a newspaper and the news staff (including the news editor) are completely different. So, you can get a paper with news reporting that is "un"biased, or biased in direction, and editorials that biased in a different direction.

When people have explained this to me, they always cite a famous newspaper, The Washington Post, perhaps? I can't remember, but has anyone else heard this explanation?

If true, then it would help explain why newspapers are comfortable committing to a candidate. If not, well, personally, I like knowing the bias of a paper - it helps me filter through that bias and figure out what's really going on. In fact, since I think that even papers that appear unbiased at first glance are still biased (being written by human beings, so far as I know), I'd rather read the overtly biased papers, again so that I don't get tricked into accepting opinion as fact.

Re:Why do we put up with this? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442767)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Acts as kind of a filter for the reader to know where the paper is coming from.

Never thought about it that way. I suppose I'm trying to live in an idealized world.

Re:Why do we put up with this? (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442926)

Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.

Like Soylent Green, newspapers are made out of people.

The fact is that some journalists go into reporting as a way to satisfy their desire to be listened to. They report what they want you to hear in the way they want to you hear it.

Many uphold and respect the idea of no bias, but only the stupid believe that they are really unbiased.

Small town papers don't pay well, and won't necessarily have the kind of reporter that can be as unbiased as you seem to desire. Good reporters move on to better paying jobs.

Larger newspapers are often owned by someone with a slant who only hires others with a slant, and fires those who oppose.

Newspapers aren't meant to provide unbiased editorials. They are meant to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions - this is about the best standard you can hope for, though you will not always find it.

-Adam

It's a pretty common thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10442991)

Most daily newspapers endorse candidates or proposals. The difference is endorsements always appear on the Opinion/Editorial page. (That's the page with the comics on it that you don't understand)

While some make the case that newspapers (and the Media) are liberal biased, my hometown paper, The Birmingham News, endorses candidates from both parties, although not for the same election of course.

This is a real service to readers not so much for presidental elections, but for local and state elections when the candidates and issues are not well know or understood by the public. I had no idea which candidate was better for State Commissioner of Agriculture and Industry, but I was alble to read the News analysis of the candidates to decide.

home coverage (1)

redtail1 (603986) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442326)

Kerry's home toilet paper, the tabloid Boston Herald [bostonherald.com] , hasn't endorsed anyone yet either.

They seem pretty slippery...... (2, Interesting)

Nagatzhul (158676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442392)

in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.

More of this? (2)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442422)

As with most of the stories that wind up in this section, this is:

1) Ludicrously insignificant
2) A week old

Well that settles it then... (2, Funny)

AnwerB (255422) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442423)

Well that settles it then! Everyone vote for Kerry!

I mean, really - I have no idea who to vote for until someone tells me. I'm just scared that someone will come along and endorse Bush, and then I'll have no idea what to do...

Ignore endorsements, do the research (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442474)

Research the candidates on their issues. Then research to see if they stuck to their campaign promises. Don't go by endorsements, that's the lazy thing to do, unless you really trust the source. For example, I'll try going through my state's voters' guide for all the candidates. I'll create a text file called "Vote". I'll list all the candidates, then write down YES, NO, MAYBE, MAYBE/YES, and MAYBE/NO. Then come when my absentee ballot arrives, I'll go through the list, and then try deciding. A few issues might throw me, and sway my vote to vote no on that candidate.

Social Security (4, Interesting)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442528)

The most disturbing thing about this article is it's point of view on social security. It shows a compleate lack of understanding and total disreguard for reality.

Social Security as it exists today is a massive government mandated pyramid scheme that lets politicians in Washington dupe millions of people out of hard earned money on the grounds that it's "for retirement". In truth had the government issued savings bonds (the lowest yeild investment you can get) to everyone on Social Security everybody would have been better off. The government could have used the lower interest debt to pay off higher interest debt and the retireees would have more money. Furthermore the retirees would know EXACTLY how much money they have for retirement and know it is gauranteed instead of having some vague promise subject to political whims. Instead, the current scheme was concocted where people working today pay for those who worked before them and they in turn will be paid for by those who work after them. Obviously this rely's on the pool of workers never dropping, a rediculous assumption. Furthermore, as it is, the payouts on Social Security for almost all beneficiaries are below inflation (that is they are getting less value out then they put in) and served as a worse investment than savings bonds (which is considered the lowest return you should every accept and then only in small ammounts). While this isn't that big of a deal for those of us making enough money to plan for retirement without social security, many people who are less fortunate then us NEED that money to be invested wisely so that they CAN retire. Ripping them off for political gains is amoral behavior and should stop. What we need to do is get the government and it's bueracray out of running a retirement bussiness. Steps:

  1. Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in. Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has. This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
  2. The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
  3. Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.

Re:Social Security (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442918)

Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in.

Okay, so for the $X I've already paid into Social Security, I loose my claim to any benefit I might have gained from Social Security, but I get the savings bonds instead. I follow you so far.

Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has.

But the government doesn't get anything out of this. You've increased the National Debt by the $X of my savings bonds. But the money I paid into Social Security has, for the most part, already been spent. Unless I cash my bonds, that is, in which case the cash goes straight to me. You're funding the current retirees how again?

This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.

Like I said, you haven't generated any cash, only debt.

The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).

So if I'm self-employed, I get twice as many Savings Bonds as the guy next door.

Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).

So, what do you do when, a few years from now, when the retired-and-now-broke me shows up at the emergency room (or the polling station) demanding that I be taken care of because I chose to cash-out years ago? And haven't we been here before?

You need to think this through better. Try backing-up your arguments with actual numbers, and you'll discover they don't add up. The reason we have Social Security today is because there is an implicit understanding that people need help in their retirement, and society has a responsibility to provide that. If you try to change that, you're going to have an awful lot of thoroughly pissed Baby Boomers out to vote you into the ground.

The problem isn't mis-management of the Social Security monies, but the mistaken impression that Social Security is a program that only needs to be provided during good economic times with a booming workforce, and that somehow it's not important to provide the same benefits when the economy tanks and the workforce starts shrinking.

Re:Social Security (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443021)

These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.

Great. Except I am confused over the "little cost" line. If we give someone a savings bond, then there is a cost. It may be hidden somehow by being a bond (and maybe you can explain it to me), but a bond still has some cost somewhere along the way. Note that it is pretty likely the government is already paying low interest rates on it's debt (the government refinances its debt the same way we all re-finance our mortgages). So, you wouldn't be saving that much money on "lower interest debt". Also, I'm not sure about this, but I think your plan would result in a very large increase in interest rates.

Can you provide a link either verifying my thought or explaining how the bonds would have lower costs?

Re:Social Security (1)

Kwil (53679) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443138)

I thought social security applied to everyone whether they paid into it or not?

So what happens under your plan to those who haven't put much in?

Meaningless (3, Interesting)

mtaco (520758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442569)

It's ironic, but meaningless. The owner/editor is a Democrat who has run for office, been defeated, and doesn't live in Crawford.

Most of the town residents have started boycotting the paper since the editorial ran.

Big Emphasis on Social Security (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 9 years ago | (#10442719)

The Lone Star Iconoclast participates with the rest of the USA in the self-delusion that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and won't inevitably fail. So much for being Iconoclast.

In other news... (1)

mb10ofBATX (126746) | more than 9 years ago | (#10443153)

The AP has just reported that slashdot.org's very own AnonymousCoward has endorsed President George W. Bush for another term as President of the United States of America.

This is a true sign that the country is leaning toward endorsing President Bush in the upcoming election and that Slashdot has gone WAY THE HELL OFF TOPIC!!!

politics.slashdot.org
Politics reported by its bias-crap-o-meter.
Stuff real people know doesn't matter.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...