It's troubling, if not downright disturbing. Dave Ross (KIRO m-f, 3-6p) spoke Friday with National Enquirer editor Barry Levine about the tabloid's copyrighted story that claims George W. Bush, a self-identified recovering alcoholic, has forsook his pledge and is now drinking again. He was caught slamming Jim Beam, family sources say, by Laura Bush down at the ranch during Hurricane Katrina.
"'When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot,' said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"
They broke it, Levine said, because they wanted to scoop a large mainstream paper who is also working the story.
Apparently, Bush doesn't just slur softly and carry a big stick-- he shouts and uses his middle finger like a stick. Capitol Hill Blue, a Beltway insider newsletter, has been reporting all summer that White House aides complain about a restless, irritable and discontented President with "wide mood swings and obscene outbursts."
They say White House physician Col. Richard J. Tubb, prescribed anti-depressants after Bush stormed off stage July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Ken Lay.
“'Keep those motherfuckers away from me,' he screamed at an aide backstage. 'If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.'”
The Enquirer interviewed Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, who said: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.
"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening. He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”
Conservatives always say liberals are gleeful as Bush fails, and we admit, after all the strutting and neocon arrogance, a little shot of schadenfroide, not unlike a shot of whiskey, takes the edge off watching this great country founder in such a murderous, incompetent and embarrassing way. But the thought of a relapsing, untreated alcoholic at the levers of power in the White House eclipses the tiny pleasures of schadenfroide.
Bush has had a terrible summer. Parked at his front gate all summer, Cindi Sheehan, the mother of a boy killed in the unpopular Iraq War, amplified the discontent around the growing death count among GI's and Iraqis as the war wound down into the worst case scenario--civil war and failure of the Bush Doctrine.
Doug Thompson of the CHB describes Bush's reaction to Sheehan: “I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with her. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”
Despite months of stumping the country, his domestic centerpiece--Social Security privatization was DOA, not only with citizens, but with a majority Republican Congress.
Then came the horror and subsequent federal bungling of the hurricane disaster.
How did our President deal with all this? With that famous
hallmark of the hallmark of alcoholism, denial. And now, we strongly
suspect, by taking a first drink, the one so deadly for an alcoholic.
Thompson writes,
The signs have been there for too long. Bush fell off a couch after, his aides say, 'falling asleep.' He has appeared in public with bruises on his face, the kind of injuries a person would suffer from falling in alcohol-impaired conditions. He disappears from public view for extended periods, takes more vacations than other Presidents, has trouble forming words, appears disinterested in public and mangles his sentences. In other appearances he rambles and appears unable to focus. During the Katrina crisis he displayed little emotion or compassion when confronted with the horrors along the Gulf Coast."
Bush brags he gave up booze without help from treatment or Alcoholics Anonymous. Anyone who knows a stitch about alcoholism, (as we here at BlatherWatch does only too well) will tell you: that's a set-up for going back out.
Folks with personal or family exposure to alcoholism, can attest to the insidious and total insanity that is the alcoholic taking the first drink. Alcoholics have a genius for drinking at the worst possible moment--at times when the consequences are the most devastating to himself and others. No matter how much trouble and humiliation he or she has previously suffered by taking that drink.
And once that one drink's been drunk, Lucy bar the door. The alcoholic has little to no control regulating the next 50. It's trans-rational.
You righties will trash the messenger--and you're right, the National Enquirer is a sensational rag mostly devoted to celebrity penis politics.
Dave Ross grilled Levine on that point. He reminded Dave of the many big political stories the Enquirer has broken over the years. The right-wing had no problems believing them when they scooped the MSM on Monica Lewinsky--nor when they broke the Gary Hart love affair dashing his presidential campaign hopes. They uncovered Lush Rimjob's drug use. These stories were all poo-pooed by the people who's peccadilloes they exposed, but each stood up factually.
The fact is, the Enquirer is the most sued publication in America, and it costs them a lot of dough. To mitigate this, a cadre of attorneys goes over every dot & tittle of their stories scrubbing them for libel. The defense, of course, against libel, is truth.
We read better, less titllating news outlets--real journalists don't like the tabloids because of "checkbook journalism." The Enquirer, et al don't practice the self-imposed MSM ethic about paying for stories. Levine admitting writing a check when doing the Bush relapse story to ensure "exclusivity."
There's no smoking gun of course, but this is a compelling thesis no matter what. The Enquirer sources were close family and friends in Texas. CHB talked to aides and staffers in Washington. Sounds like a storm is gathering from east and west.
An impeachment for lying abour sex in the last president's term seems even more benign now whe you compare it to a President with a locked and loaded military in his back seat getting pulled over for GUI-- governing under the influence.
This is about the scariest blog posting I've seen. We can only hope the tabloid has it wrong.
Posted by: Unkl Witz | October 01, 2005 at 10:15 PM
The source isn't the issue. The proof is in the pudding - let's see how the President performs. And if we see the "smoking gun", then we'll worry about what to do. Otherwise, for the moment, we have some wild rumors.
Posted by: ExDem | October 01, 2005 at 10:59 PM
If we're going to base this on performance it would appear that he's been drinking since day one.
Posted by: ExRat | October 02, 2005 at 10:38 AM
I've heard, for some time, that Bush is a "dry drunk" http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html, so dry or wet, he's definitely incompetent and the Dems have got to get their act together to sweep him into the ether....!
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2005 at 12:26 PM
Since Bush is so incompetent (or so drunk) since Day 1, why did he get re-elected?
Is it because the American public is so stupid?
Posted by: ExDem | October 02, 2005 at 01:09 PM
It doesn't take many stupid people to swing a close election!
"If you're not rich or stupid, you shoud be a DEMOCRAT!!"
Posted by: ExRat | October 02, 2005 at 01:31 PM
ExRat,
So you believe that the majority of American voters are stupid.
Or are you saying that the vast majority of people that support Bush are intelligent? And that only a thin slice of idiots swung the election?
Please clarify your position...
Posted by: ExDem | October 02, 2005 at 02:17 PM
I like fake ex-lefties... they're so cute ;)
I'd go with ExRat tho', far too many of the voters are stupid, and vote against themselves because they've been sold a good line of crap.
Of course our only worry is having a self-righteous, angry drunk in power... And hoping he doesn't do too much harm to his dupes before he leaves or is removed.
Posted by: windie | October 02, 2005 at 04:40 PM
Well, Bush was elected by a (slim) majority of voters so I will go so far as to say they are (a) Stupid (b) uninformed or (c) naïve.
If W is indeed drinking that would explain his propensity for spending money he doesn’t have.
Posted by: ExRat | October 02, 2005 at 06:15 PM
So Windie and ExRat believe that the majority of American voters are naive (at best) or stupid (more likely).
What does that mean in regard to current opinion polls about the President, since the majority of people being surveyed are stupid? Should we ignore the results?
Also, were the majority of voters smarter before Bush got elected? And then they became stupid, just for the last 2 elections?
Perhaps the two of you can explain this mass of idiots running around America that are allowed to vote and participate in opinion polls. I take it from your enlightened posts that you must be much smarter than those people. It would be interesting if the ignorant masses could learn from you.
Posted by: ExDem | October 02, 2005 at 09:54 PM
I'd be willing to bet that ExDem thought the American votere wers stupid when Clinton was elected!
Posted by: J_P_K | October 03, 2005 at 07:15 AM
The defense against libel is "absence of malice"...not truth.
Posted by: umo | October 03, 2005 at 08:01 AM
They're stupid in general. They were stupid 8 years ago, they were stupid 5 years ago, they were stupid 1 year ago, they're stupid now.
The fact that our voters tend to go for almost anything BUT ability, whether it be party loyalty, religious manipulation, whatever, is one of the great tragedies of american democracy.
Posted by: windie | October 03, 2005 at 08:41 AM
ExDem, red state voters are the people most likely to benefit from farming subsidies which Democrats are more likely to pass than Republicans. The red states effectively vote against themselves.
The last time they said the reason was values. They somehow reason that pro-business Republicans share their Jesusy values of breaking bread and sharing. And look what's happening, Republican politician is becoming synonomous with scandel. If this many of them have been caught doing something wrong imagine how many haven't been caught.
No I don't respect them.
Posted by: Andrew | October 03, 2005 at 10:25 AM
This is an enlightening discussion. I was recently in Turkey (before the idiotic Karen Hughes "diplomacy" tour), and several Turks asked me why we re-elected Bush...I said "9-11" and Christian fudamentali$m, but, obvioulsy it was stupidity....Too late now....
Posted by: Fremont | October 03, 2005 at 10:30 AM
I think I'm going to write my elected representatives and tell them to talk to Fremont, Windie, Andrew, JPK, Chris, Sparky and ExRat. Surely this brain trust can save our country.
I'm surprised there aren't more people that recognize the genius of people on the far left. But perhaps mainstream Americans are turned off by narrow-minded people that view them as incompetent idiots. Gee, now that I think about it, maybe that's why the left keeps losing elections......
No need to go on any further with this thread. It is hilarious, and pathetic, to read your thoughts about mainstream Americans. Thank goodness people with your beliefs will never be in charge of anything. But at least there are sites like this or DailyKos to provide you an echo chamber where you can make each other feel justified in your extreme positions. Thanks for your candor!
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 06:34 AM
Why do you need a representative to talk to us, that for some reason or lack of knowledge, you cannot? Or have you given up already?
Posted by: chris | October 04, 2005 at 09:19 AM
ExFem: how did you feel about mainstream Americans when they elected Bill Clinton, Al Gore in 2000, Maria Canwell, Jim McDermott, or 49.99% voted for John Kerry?
Posted by: blathering michael | October 04, 2005 at 09:31 AM
Oh that's different, Michael...you are forgetting the two sets of rules. Besides, facts should not get in the way of a conservative argument. It's too messy.
Meanwhile...21 members of the Bush Administration are related in some way ( some more than others) to the Plame investigation.
Mr. Fitzgerald will be filling us all in shortly...
Posted by: sparky | October 04, 2005 at 09:54 AM
ExDem says: "No need to go on any further with this thread."
Translation: "Holy shit these Liberals are starting to site FACTS! I'm outta here."
Posted by: J_P_K | October 04, 2005 at 10:16 AM
Grow up gang. My responses:
I voted for Clinton the first time, and didn't the second time. I didn't believe that everyone who disagreed with my vote was an idiot. I respect the will of the people.
I believe Kerry got 48% of the vote to Bush's 51%. At any rate, it was something like a 3 million vote margin of victory if memory serves me correctly.
There aren't two different sets of rules. There is a common set of laws. I'm fine if they want to investigate government officials. Something like 14 people got convicted in the Whitewater investigation. Let the legal system run it's course. I guess I'm surprised if the people on this blog actually believe that only one side of the political table has to deal with nepotism, cronyism, corruption, etc. When the legal system renders a judgment, then we have to live with it - whether we like it or agree with it. A judge says Clinton lied under oath and leveled a fine on him and took away his law license. If a judge says someone commited a crime in the Plame case, great. Then punish the offender.
It is funny, and at times frustrating, to have these types of discussions with liberals. Their common techniques nowadays in "debating" include the following:
1) Avoid answering the question. Someone asks a simple question like "Is it wrong to lie to the American public?" Normal people can quickly give a one word answer - YES. Liberals will start to talk about Bush, WMDs Rove, "who's the liar?", etc., but never can quite get to the simple and direct answer. Usually because they don't want to take a stand that could later be used against them.
2) Raise the boogeyman. They believe that by saying things like "neo-con" or "Haliburton" or "Rove" that we will all naturally gasp in disgust and agree that the person we are debating with has lost. Wierd technique, especially when liberals get out into the real world where people want to debate on the actual issues and facts.
3) Try insults or name calling. Call someone "ExFem" because you don't have anything worth offering. Or use the nuclear option and declare your opponent a racist (or a Nazi or a bigot or etc.) because you think it will invalidate anything else they are saying. People like Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Randi Rhodes, etc. like this technique. It's usually a sure sign that they have lost the argument.
4) Fillabuster. On blogs this doesn't work. But in conversations, you see it on TV all the time. The liberal just keeps ranting on and on, talking over the person they are debating. Often times their rant is "You keep interupting me..." or "Are you going to let me finish..." after they have just spent the last few minutes not answering the direct question (in other words, after they have employed technique # 1).
So, I'll hang around and participate in these sessions. I just didn't think there was much more to say on this thread, but maybe I was wrong.
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 11:00 AM
thank you for proving my point!
Posted by: sparky | October 04, 2005 at 12:02 PM
Glad to help Sparky. Nice to know that someone else thinks the far lefties on this blog are silly also.
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Hey ExDem:
Leaving all parties out of it, if you had someone who continually voted against their own best interests, and kept believing the person that lied to them despite all facts and evidence... wouldn't you be tempted to call them "stupid"?
Posted by: windie | October 04, 2005 at 02:12 PM
ex-dam has drank the kool-aid, it's too late.
Posted by: chris | October 04, 2005 at 02:25 PM
Windie,
Personally, I'm hesitant to declare that someone is voting against their own best interests. That assumes that they don't know what's best for themselves. That might be true for little kids, for some young adults and for people with certain afflictions (e.g., mental disorders, drug usage). But I wouldn't assume that in the voting population, that people in those profiles would be anything more than a tiny % of the electorate.
So, to fully address your question, let's look beyond that set of people. If someone is truly self-destructive and doesn't act in their own best interests, then "stupid" could be an applicable term. However, I don't believe that this set of people represents a measurable fraction of the voting population.
I just think it's silly when I hear people claim that entire populations of "red states" are voting against their best interests. They know what they like and want, and they vote for candidates that most closely match what they are looking for.
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 02:33 PM
ExDem, on the points
1) republicans avoid the specifics of linking Iraq and terrorism which is alot more shamefull than splitting hairs over semantics.
2) You say we use words like NeoCon to demonize, and while I see no evidence of that here, you're the one pigeon holing all of your opposition as "liberals".
3) That's just silly. People from both sides throw insults, not just the liberal side. It adds color.
4) That doesn't aply here so who cares.
You're insisting that since the majority of people voted for Bush and republicans that they must also support their actions. They might not realy know what republicans are up to. They know they are close to the Christian establishment and that they are anti-taxes supposedly, and that sounds good in theory. They migth not know about the acts of greed and wrecklessness that sets Bush and other republicans apart from the ideals they voted for. I don't blame them for not knowing, you would have to watch the news and alot of people don't have time. Having said that, I don't think people should vote if they don't know what they are voting for. I'm convinced those mouth breathing hicks who voted for bush were too busy shooting animals to realize Bush isn't Reagan part two.
Posted by: Andrew | October 04, 2005 at 02:41 PM
If I am a single mother who relies on day care subsidies so I can go to college to get a good job, and I vote for Bush, I have voted against my best interests.
If I am a college student and Bush decides to cut my grant to pay for his war and his wealthy friends' tax cuts, and I still vote for him, then I have voted against my best interest.
If I am the father of a family of 4 and my job is outsourced overseas so my millionaire CEO can make more of a profit and I still vote for Bush, then I have voted against my best interests.
If I am an elderly person who relies on Medicare and Bush cuts it to the bone to pay for his war, and I vote for him anyway, then I have voted against my own interests,.
If I am a military wife and my husbands pay and benifits are cut or my republican congress critter votes against increased funding, and I vote for Bush anyway, then I have voted against my best interests.
If I am a farmer and I rely on some subsidies from the government so I wont lose my farm, but Bush cuts those subsidies, and I vote for him anyway, then I have voted against my best interests.
If I am a commercial fisherman who relies on clean , cold oceans to ensure a good harvest of fish, and Bush ignores environmental issues and approves off shore drilling, and I voted for Bush anyway, then I have voted against my best interests.
If I am a member of a conservative Christian church and Bush promises he will nominate an extremely conservative judge who will be a strong voice for American Christians, and then he goes and nominates a personal friend who is not likely to do as I wish, then I have been duped.
Posted by: sparky | October 04, 2005 at 02:48 PM
Sparky,
Maybe all of these "dependent" people you cite actually are seeking to be more self-sufficient. Maybe they don't really want government doing everything for them or others. Maybe their vote for Bush aligns with their self interests.
Perhaps all of those people you refer to are really thinking the following:
I'm a single mother, so I moved back in with my parents so they could help me while I go to college. I don't want others ending up in the same dilemma I'm in, so I don't want the government facilitating these type of situations.
I'm a college student who lost his grant. But that's OK, I'll just get student loans like my dad did and work part time to pay for college. I'd prefer that people earn their way through college like I am, since it is possible for any of us to get loans, work our way through college, get private grants or attend community college.
I'm a father of 4 and my job is getting outsourced. I can't blame my employer for choosing sourcing options that enhance the long term success of the company. That's why I kept learning and growing on the job, because there are no guarantees in the business world. Now I'm eligible for a different position in the company or I also have the option to seek employment elsewhere, since I've made myself a valuable asset for a company.
I'm on Medicare and I'm lucky - the current administration passed a huge increase in benefits last year. But, I also have my children to help support me because they are in the prime of their lives and they are working. Just like when Grandpa lived with us when I was growing up. I really miss those days but am glad I was so close to him.
I'm a military wife and my husband is deployed to Iraq. I chose to marry him and I support him. He re-enlisted because he loves the military so much. He feels a strong sense of purpose is carrying out his mission. The troops in his unit overwhelmingly support the President. We're not getting rich in the military, but that's not why we serve. And, because it's an all volunteer force, we make our choices and we live with them. And I'm proud of my husband.
I'm a farmer and the government wants to cut crop subsidies. Thank goodness - I see so many crops that go to waste because farmers are wasting their land growing crops that aren't needed. I'm an American farmer - and I can compete and win against any other nation's farmers. Our technology and work ethic are the best. Without government subsidies, we'll grow the crops that the market is demanding and do very well economically.
I'm a fisherman and I care about clean oceans. I also like modern conveniences and cheap energy and low priced goods. I think on balance, the government does a decent job of sensibly protecting our environment without stifling progress and growth. My fishing business is good - we had a record catch this year.
I'm a conservative Christian and I like the values Bush speaks to. However, my faith is in God, not government. So I'm glad to hear the good talk from government but won't depend on them. I'll keep living my life in accordance with the scriptures and serve as a good living witness to Jesus Christ. My mission is to evangelize others, so we don't have to look to government to enact Christian principles. Instead, hearts will be converted and people will naturally live those principles, and the government policies will be a natural extension of our beliefs. That's what God expects from me as a Christian.
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 03:51 PM
Jesus was a liberal
Posted by: chris | October 04, 2005 at 05:45 PM
wow...i want me a pair of those rose-colored glasses...you see it as
Morning in America...but I work with these people, and when there is no parent to move in with, when I dont qualify for a college loan, when my company FIRES me because my job is cheaper in India, when my military family has to get food stamps and the government repays my injured husband by not providing medical care, and if I am a fisherman who looks to the bigger picture of how our environment is at the tipping point and this years good catch cannot be sustained when the oceans change.....then I need a temporary hand up--not hand out--from my government because I pay taxes to fund those programs.
I am not looking at these things to be negative..I am looking at the reality of everyday lives of people who are not as lucky as you, but have to get by without family or other personal safety nets. This has been the whole problem with Bush and his cronies--they dont know, understand, believe or care that MANY people like this exist...
afterall, they are poor and " things are working out well for them, dont you think?"
Posted by: sparky | October 04, 2005 at 06:30 PM
Very insightful comments, Sparky. Wisdon is not in rich supply among exdem and his cohorts, sorry to say.
Thanks for putting it into perspective.
Posted by: chrissy | October 04, 2005 at 06:54 PM
High Sparky! You are an accomplished blogger, however, as do most liberals or otherwise sickened individuals, you lack common sense. Perhaps your mother was at fault. Attack you personally? Well you do so on a regular basis liberal. Apparently, you are what you call your adversaries. When did the liberals become the unenlightened and closed minded people of our times? How sad. Unable to realize your own demise. Eric
Posted by: Eric Johnson | October 04, 2005 at 09:09 PM
Want safety nets Sparky? Why not give all bums on the side of the freeways a liberal sticker that entitles them to free love. Then give them a condom, (as if they would use it) and tell them that Marx will look out for them? The same old game of democrats "playing" the black people. I am talking to black people and they are fed up with you people playing them. You are finished.
Posted by: Eric Johnson | October 04, 2005 at 09:16 PM
Alcoholism in polotics? Why is it when I hear that word I always think of Kennedy? I guess the point is what is worse, an alcoholic who has had a relapse or one that has never stopped. Then of course I take everything in this article with a grain of salt. As for me, who cares. Everyone is making such and issue out of GW, he is history in "08".
Posted by: steve | October 04, 2005 at 09:25 PM
Ever wonder why after several generations of the "War on Poverty" the government continues to support so many people every year?
You have a different vision of the world.
You seem to want to drive everything toward the exception, toward the lowest aspirations. The current administration reflects the vision of people of faith who encourage people to aspire to be who God created them to be. God didn't create people to be isolated, destitute and helpless. Every person has a purpose in life. And there are plenty of churches and volunteer organizations devoted to helping people fulfill their higher purpose. They do it by providing food, shelter, clothing, jobs, education, health care and compassion to the less fortunate.
Charity works as a "hand up" when there is a face and a name associated with it. Welfare works as a "handout" when it is distributed by an annonymous, faceless government. Before the welfare state existed, communities were forced to deal with the poor amongst them. And the poor were also accountable to themselves and their community. People in the past weren't shielded from their poor choices in most cases. And family, neighbors and caring institutions were there to help those who suffered misfortune that were willing to work for a better life.
Government welfare may have had good intentions but it has had undesirable results. I heard that over 60% of black children in today's society in America are growing up in homes without fathers. Before the "Great Society" programs began, that figure was about 20%. A terrible tragedy that certainly hasn't been helped by the government. About 80% more dollars have been spent on entitlement programs for the poor during the first 5 years of the Bush adminstration than in the last 5 years of the Clinton administration. $9 billion is missing in Iraq and people are screaming about government incompetence. Yet, literally trillions of dollars have been spent on the poor since Lyndon Johnson and what do we have to show for it? If the "War on Poverty" was treated like the Iraq War, I guess we'd hear MoveOn.org screaming to "withdraw immediately"......
So, if you're really interested in helping the poor, your vision for the world doesn't seem to be working out. Why not try a new approach?
Posted by: ExDem | October 04, 2005 at 09:34 PM
"Why not give all bums on the side of the freeways a liberal sticker that entitles them to free love."
isnt that one of them moral country music songs?
Posted by: sparky | October 04, 2005 at 10:01 PM
Eric, Idaho is but one of the 50 great states, you need to get out more.
Posted by: chris | October 04, 2005 at 10:06 PM
Wow, you loonies are on a roll. The only thing missing is video so we can all see the froth on your mouths. To Ex-Dem, great talking points but it goes over the head of most of these people.
I hope Bush just keeps all your knickers in a knot so I can have my laughs.
Posted by: Lump | October 05, 2005 at 09:44 AM
ExDem, you and conservative coworkers I've had say charities exist to do what liberals want the government to do. Social programs are like charity but the main difference is that you would be forced to donate and it's clear you don't want to. You want to leave that to all the good hearted people who like to give money away, but that's not you and damned if the government is going to force you to help someone other than yourself.
And your assertion that social programs create black fatherless homes is a racist leap of logic. You will take anything that's bad in the world and try to link it to liberal thought, and then you'll pepper it with some bigotry for good measure.
Posted by: Andrew | October 05, 2005 at 11:00 AM
Lumpy nor 'ex-dem' (if he ever was one) cannot answer to Bush' disaproval ratings being among the highest of any president, nor can they explain the constant cutting of social programs, since Raygun in which his massive deficits (record)in which their grandkids will be paying the interest alone off for years(reagan was the one who said he wanted "less government" but not necessaraily less debt) and this now, C student president who has also contributed equally, actually more so to the trillions in debt pilling up. It will be interesting to see how the future generations will treat the old who stood by while this happened?
Posted by: chris | October 05, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Andrew - don't project your inner thoughts onto me. You have no idea about me (you don't know what race I am, you don't know how much I donate to charity).
I didn't say that social programs caused fatherless children in the black community. But, my feeling is that it contributes to the problem. If you think that's racist, so be it. If those social programs don't play a role, then why has the % of fatherless kids gone up so much along with the growth of the entitlement programs?
I think it's bigotry to just watch the problems get worse in the black community without trying to solve them. All I know is that plowing more money into government programs has not solved the biggest problems in the black community. And thinking that more money and more programs are the answer is a response that apparently accomplishes the sick goals of the racists and bigots. I'm not signing up for those stupid solutions, but I guess you could term someone as racist that is signing up for those solutions.
Chris - you need to check your facts. Spending on entitlement programs for the poor in the last 5 years is about 80% greater (something like $180 billion in 2000 and now it's about $320 billion). So saying that Bush has massive cutting of social programs is just factually incorrect.
As for his approval numbers, I'm not clear why Bush should care.
#1 - people like you have made it perfectly clear to me that the majority of Americans are idiots that vote against their own self interests. So why should anyone care what they think? Or even better, isn't it good news for Bush that all those idiots disagree with him now? Doesn't that put him on the right side of the issues along with all of the enlightened people on the left?
#2 - he's not up for election. So, he has some freedom to take on the hard problems. Fixing social security, fighting global terrorism, reforming education - these are all things that are difficult and entrenched interests are pushing back on his agenda. So his poll numbers are down. OK, so that's what people feel. I accept that and it's his issue to deal with.
The deficit is smaller now than in past administrations. The deficit as a % of GDP is lower than in the Reagan years, lower than the Roosevelt administration. So you need to check your facts and keep the perspective that the financial markets are keeping. The problem isn't as bad as you think. I am in favor of less spending though, so I definitely would like the President to change in this area. So you and I can be on the same team on this one - let's balance the budget!
Posted by: ExDem | October 05, 2005 at 05:17 PM
ExDem, The reason I call it racist is because it shouldn't matter if the family is black or white, both types of families receive social assistance.
People of all colors and status are less committed to relationships than they once were, ya it's a result of irresponsibilty, but only a fraction of the population is on social assistance so that's not a probable cause.
If the alternative is not to give poor parents assistance then babies will become malnurished.
I'm guessing your solution would be for them to go to a church and look for charity. It wouldn't cost you anything and a new generation would be endoctrinated with Christianity.
The church would tell the kids to wait until they get locked into a marriage to have sex, not to use condoms and not to get an abortion when they become pregnant to ensure that a new generation of kids gets infected with the same doctrine, killing their ability think freely about the universe. It's devious and evil.
I'm not in favor of the status quo, I'm for improving the system that is there so it works. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ask yourself why social assisitance doesn't work and think about how it could work better rather than choosing the selfish path of getting rid of it.
Posted by: Andrew | October 05, 2005 at 06:57 PM
"Him or her are learning" " Our literacy are appalling!" ...yes Im glad Bushie is tackling the problems of edyoukation! Its hard work!
Posted by: sparky | October 05, 2005 at 09:26 PM
Andrew,
It's not selfish to help the less fortunate in a personal manner. You have a different vision of the world. People have been asking why social programs don't work for the past 20 years, and many have concluded that those programs, when run by the government, might be the problem.
You see, I pay plenty of taxes. On top of that, I tithe 10% of my income. I see a lot more success from each dollar I give to Mercy Corps and World Vision each month than I do from each tax dollar taken from me.
Here's an idea. Let's eliminate the payroll deduction for federal taxes. Instead, let's give people 100% of their paycheck, then ask them to write a check each month to pay their share of taxes. Then perhaps the government would be more responsive to the citizens and more efficient with the public treasury. People might be a bit more aware of what is happening with the money they hand over to the government if they have to literally take the money out of their wallet and hand it over (vs never seeing the money at all).
Here's another idea. I propose we change the 1040 form. For the people that want more money for the federal government, give them the option to pay additional taxes - above and beyond what the tax table requires. This would allow people with the greatest faith in government the ability to make the government their "charity" of choice. I don't object to people demanding more money for the government being the ones to pay in more.
Of course, my second idea has been piloted in several states like Massachusettes and Arkansas. The funny thing is that people like John Kerry did not check the box that gave him the option to pay at a higher tax rate than required. The Arkansas experiment yielded an additional $1,500 for the state treasury the year it was tried. So, all of the good hearted people that want the public to pay for more programs don't seem to want to contribute toward that additional spending.
No, the selfish people aren't the ones that don't trust the government solutions. Those people are volunteering time or donating money to private organizations that do a much better job because they respect the inherent dignity of human beings. It's easy for supposedly good hearted people to preach about the need for more government programs - especially when so many of them are not willing to pick up the additional tab. I guess it makes someone feel good to act so morally superior without having to bear any cost for their high moral position. To the rest of us, it just rings hollow.....and appears phony....
Posted by: ExDem | October 05, 2005 at 10:36 PM
You say people have been trying to fix social assistance for 20 years. Maybe it takes 30. Because it's not perfect you want to destroy it. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water - meaning you're eliminating the good things along with the bad things.
I respect that you might donate money to your favorite causes but you would be the exception not the rule. People are inherently selfish so I'm afraid that donations alone aren't sufficient, and again, if it's by way of church, I'm disturbed that people have to turn to endoctrination to receive assistance. It's realy out the question if you aren't Christian to begin with.
One reason social assistance might be dysfunctional is because it could be true that politicians wrecklessly throw money at it to buy poor votes, that's possible, but that's a problem that can be adressed. It doesn't single handedly cancel out the entire socialist paradigm.
If it's true that social assistance promotes lazyness then whoever is in charge of those programs needs to keep better track of who receives what. Lazy people aren't needy, they are just lazy. If the people in charge aren't motivated then they need a different incentive. Maybe a standard has to be set by someone that they are expected to meet.
Problems can addressed. The fact that you ignore this makes it seem that you'll grasp for any excuse to pay lower taxes. Your solutions aren't realistic.
Posted by: Andrew | October 05, 2005 at 11:17 PM
> "And if we see the "smoking gun", then we'll worry about what to do."
Let's just hope that this smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a mushroom cloud.
Posted by: Dave | October 05, 2005 at 11:56 PM
Andrew,
I understand where you are coming from. And I think you understand my position.
I do agree with your points about why government social programs aren't effective or efficient. But, I also believe that it has proven to be an unrealistic solution to try and fix government or expect that those program will get better under government stewardship.
The approach I prefer is not unrealistic - it's what we had in place before the government became more socialistic. I would prefer lower taxes - not because I'm opposed to funding common services that the government can best provide (e.g., national defense, air traffic control, etc.). I would prefer that my tax dollars were better spent. I don't desire to give the government more tax dollars so that the money can be spent ineffectively by them. I'm willing to pay a fair amount of taxes. Heck, 28% of my income already goes to Federal Income Tax.
Posted by: ExDem | October 06, 2005 at 01:02 AM
The problem with selecting privatized organizations that perform public functions: they are more interested in selling a good image of themselves than selling good service.
Car insurance and phone companies say they are committed to serving us with a cool, calm tone of voice. Yet they still had me hold for 27 minutes only two days ago. So even though conservatives say businesses are more efficient I can't tell the difference except that the private versions have better advertisements, and most importantly they exist to make a profit one way or another, maybe at my expense. How big of a profit are they expecting and how badly are they willing to screw me to earn that profit?
I haven't heard of anyone trying to improve accountability. Why not have one organization that simply make sure the other organizations meet their expectations and if they don't, determine why that organization is failing and do something about it.
It would probably be cheaper to pay some people to find and eliminate the waste caused by other parts of the government than it would be to simply let it continue. Why are there always people standing around at road construnction sites? How come at Mariners games a policeman directing traffic is payed to points cars in the same direction as a sign they have placed right beside him?
Posted by: Andrew | October 06, 2005 at 11:32 AM
Everything is intact, buildings, roads, cars; they're all still there, only things are starting to deteriorate a bit. Grass is growing up through the cracks in the pavement.
Posted by: cheap insurance | December 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM