"Hevesi blasts Social Security plan - Treasurer criticizes Bush proposal for private accounts, saying it would endanger poor, elderly"

By ERIN DUGGAN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, April 21, 2005

ALBANY -- Democratic state Comptroller Alan Hevesi waded into the Social Security debate Wednesday, calling President Bush's proposal for private investment accounts "a fraud" and "an ideological assault by opponents of government, who believe government is the enemy, on the one social program that has worked better than any other."

Hevesi's remarks were notable in New York, where 3 million residents rely on Social Security.

State lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have been largely silent on the issue.

Most New York GOP congressmen haven't taken definitive stands on individual accounts, and Bush ally Gov. George Pataki has been mum as well.

Though Bush's plan seems to be losing steam in Washington, Democratic opponents in Albany amped up their case against it this week.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, and Senate Minority Leader David Paterson are both supporting resolutions against private Social Security accounts.

A forum on Social Security is being held today by the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, and a group called In This Together: New Yorkers United to Protect Social Security planned to try to corner U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, on the issue during a visit to Albany earlier this week.

Opponents of the private accounts released a study by the Washington-based Institute for America's Future showing Bush's plan would pull New York seniors into poverty and cost the state billions of dollars to care for them.

The group, which is putting out similar reports in other states, said fluctuations in the stock market could leave investors with less retirement money than Social Security alone.

Bush has made 24 stops on a national tour promoting his program -- but none in New York.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius wouldn't comment on Bush's next stop.

Lisaius said Bush wants to work with both parties to create a stronger Social Security system.

"This is a priority for the President," he said.

"This is too important to be ignored."

Lisaius said one obvious option that won't be considered is raising the federal payroll tax cap.

Currently, income up to $90,000 is subject to the payroll tax.

So, someone earning $90,000 a year is taxed on each paycheck.

A worker making $180,000 only pays the tax during the first six months of the year.

Some of the highest paid chief executive officers can have their entire payroll tax taken out during the first half of the New Year's Day Rose Bowl, Hevesi said.

Hevesi told the Times Union his office disagrees with the premise of the President's efforts.

"The Social Security system is not in crisis," Hevesi said.

"It's got financial problems down the road."

"If the President is looking for a crisis, let him fix Medicaid."

"That is six times as bad in terms of financing."

His office calculated that if nothing is changed, the Social Security system's expenses will outpace revenues by 2018.

But, because the system has a trust fund, benefits won't be impacted until sometime between 2042 and 2052.

Pulling money out now to create private accounts, Hevesi continued, would be disastrous.

Meanwhile, the New York GOP congressional delegation is waiting for more details, their spokespeople say.

Sweeney is gathering information and working on a plan for a forum.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert has expressed skepticism but is still open to looking at reforming the program.

And Rep. John McHugh doesn't think personal accounts alone will fix Social Security's projected financial problems.

Frank Mauro of the labor-supported Fiscal Policy Institute said the federal issue is important for New Yorkers because more than 800,000 residents would be in poverty without Social Security.

Beacon is indeed lucky to have such a careful master.

I clicked on this thinking it was YOUR comparison designed to highlight the differences. All I can see is: YOU HAVE GOT TO BE S-----N' ME. There's not enough cyberspace on the web to adequately detail what's wrong with that, and I won't dignify it with any more comment than the one I think you've heard me make before: The New Deal vs. The Raw Deal.

As for me, I personally never thought I would live in a nation on this earth that has for its leader a man who spouts gibberish, and now, guess what, here it is, and here I am!

More than half of America has chosen to saddle the rest of us with a man, apparently in their image, which is a real testimonial to evolution, all right, who spouts pure gibberish!

And those people treat this gibberish as words from GOD!

I wonder what modifications old Darwin would have to make to his "selection of the fittest" nonsense, with George W. Bush as the ALPHA male down here on this earth of OURS.

I bet the monkeys and apes are having a real field day with this one, the thought that somehow, just somehow, George W. Bush might have evolved from them, and to them, what a backward evolution that must seem!

I never thought of it from the ape's point of view. Looking at George W Bush, an ape could question whether evolution moves foreward.

And looking at American presidents from where I started out with Truman, and then Ike, and then JFK, and now, George W. Bush, you cannot help but conclude that evolution is definitely backwards:

JFK: Don't ask what your country can do for you!

Ask what you can do for your country!

GEORGE W. BUSH: "The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what has come, and is coming."

- On his anti-Gore ad, in an interview with the New York Times; September 2, 2000

no wonder people constantly mis-underestimate him.

I was thinking of this "evolution" thing that we are talking about in here, and as I look back at history, I would have to say that FDR had to have been one of the most trusted leaders this country has ever had!

Why else would the American people have kept returning him to office so many times?

And what an incredible statement that is, about the man!

As to George W. Bush, it is unclear if anyone really wants him in there, at all, and it is unclear how he ever did come to be in there, and there is no evidence which suggests that it was because the American people wanted him; to the contrary, it all seems very murky with this man.

And what a difference that is between him and FDR!

And what a long way down we have come!

Selection of the fittest?

Yeah, right!

The following is a speech to the American people by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The country was in the midst of the deepest depresion in its history.

Please compare his words ( which were backed up by his actions ) with the canned
recitations of the present dweller in the White House.

Can you even imagine the current president speaking to the country in such simple, honest, humble words?

And he wants to compare himself favorably with FDR!


ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT DELIVERED BY RADIO FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
Monday, July 24, 1933, 9:30 PM



After the adjournment of the historical special session of the Congress five weeks ago I purposely refrained from addressing you for two very good reasons.

First, I think that we all wanted the opportunity of a little quiet thought to examine and assimilate in a mental picture the crowding events of the hundred days which had been devoted to the starting of the wheels of the New Deal.

Secondly, I wanted a few weeks in which to set up the new administrative organization and to see the first fruits of our careful planning.

I think it will interest you if I set forth the fundamentals of this planning for national recovery; and this I am very certain will make it abundantly clear to you that all of the proposals and all of the legislation since the fourth day of March have not been just a collection of haphazard schemes but rather the orderly component parts of a connected and logical whole.

Long before Inauguration Day I became convinced that individual effort and local effort and even disjointed Federal effort had failed and of necessity would fail and, therefore, that a rounded leadership by the Federal Government had become a necessity both of theory and of fact. Such leadership, however, had its beginning in preserving and strengthening the credit of the United States Government, because without that no leadership was a possibility. For years the Government had not lived within its income. The immediate task was to bring our regular expenses within our revenues. That has been done. It may seem inconsistent for a government to cut down its regular expenses and at the same time to borrow and to spend billions for an emergency. But it is not inconsistent because a large portion of the emergency money has been paid out in the form of sound loans which will be repaid to the Treasury over a period of years; and to cover the rest of the emergency money we have imposed taxes to pay the interest and the installments on that part of the debt.

So you will see that we have kept our credit good. We have built a granite foundation in a period of confusion. That foundation of the Federal credit stands there broad and sure. It is the base of the whole recovery plan.

Then came the part of the problem that concerned the credit of the individual citizens themselves. You and I know of the banking crisis and of the great danger to the savings of our people. On March sixth every national bank was closed. One month later 90 per cent of the deposits in the national banks had been made available to the depositors. Today only about 5 per cent of the deposits in national banks are still tied up. The condition relating to state banks, while not quite so good on a percentage basis, is shoving a steady reduction in the total of frozen deposits -- a result much better than we had expected three months ago.

The problem of the credit of the individual was made more difficult because of another fact. The dollar was a different dollar from the one with which the average debt had been incurred. For this reason large numbers of people were actually losing possession of and title to their farms and homes. All of you know the financial steps which have been taken to correct this inequality. In addition the Home Loan Act, the Farm Loan Act and the Bankruptcy Act were passed.
It was a vital necessity to restore purchasing power by reducing the debt and interest charges upon our people, but while we were helping people to save their credit it was at the same time absolutely essential to do something about the physical needs of hundreds of thousands who were in dire straits at that very moment. Municipal and State aid were being stretched to the limit. We appropriated half a billion dollars to supplement their efforts and in addition, as you know, we have put 300,000 young men into practical and useful work in our forests and to prevent flood and soil erosion. The wages they earn are going in greater part to the support of the nearly one million people who constitute their families.

In this same classification we can properly place the great public works program running to a total of over Three Billion Dollars -- to be used for highways and ships and flood prevention and inland navigation and thousands of self-sustaining state and municipal improvements. Two points should be made clear in the allotting and administration of these projects -- first, we are using the utmost care to choose labor creating quick-acting, useful projects, avoiding the smell of the pork barrel; and secondly, we are hoping that at least half of the money will come back to the government from projects which will pay for themselves over a period of years.

Thus far I have spoken primarily of the foundation stones -- the measures that were necessary to re-establish credit and to head people in the opposite direction by preventing distress and providing as much work as possible through governmental agencies. Now I come to the links which will build us a more lasting prosperity. I have said that we cannot attain that in a nation half boom and half broke. If all of our people have work and fair wages and fair profits, they can buy the products of their neighbors and business is good. But if you take away the wages and the profits of half of them, business is only half as good. It doesn't help much if the fortunate half is very prosperous -- the best way is for everybody to be reasonably prosperous.
For many years the two great barriers to a normal prosperity have been low farm prices and the creeping paralysis of unemployment. These factors have cut the purchasing power of the country in half. I promised action. Congress did its part when it passed the farm and the industrial recovery acts. Today we are putting these two acts to work and they will work if people understand their plain objectives.

First, the Farm Act: It is based on the fact that the purchasing power of nearly half our population depends on adequate prices for farm products. We have been producing more of some crops than we consume or can sell in a depressed world market. The cure is not to produce so much. Without our help the farmers cannot get together and cut production, and the Farm Bill gives them a method of bringing their production down to a reasonable level and of obtaining reasonable prices for their crops. I have clearly stated that this method is in a sense experimental, but so far as we have gone we have reason to believe that it will produce good results.

It is obvious that if we can greatly increase the purchasing power of the tens of millions of our people who make a living from farming and the distribution of farm crops, we will greatly increase the consumption of those goods which are turned out by industry.

That brings me to the final step -- bringing back industry along sound lines.

Last Autumn, on several occasions, I expressed my faith that we can make possible by democratic self-discipline in industry general increases in wages and shortening of hours sufficient to enable industry to pay its own workers enough to let those workers buy and use the things that their labor produces. This can be done only if we permit and encourage cooperative action in industry because it is obvious that without united action a few selfish men in each competitive group will pay starvation wages and insist on long hours of work. Others in that group must either follow suit or close up shop. We have seen the result of action of that kind in the continuing descent into the economic Hell of the past four years.

There is a clear way to reverse that process: If all employers in each competitive group agree to pay their workers the same wages -- reasonable wages -- and require the same hours -- reasonable hours -- then higher wages and shorter hours will hurt no employer. Moreover, such action is better for the employer than unemployment and low wages, because it makes more buyers for his product. That is the simple idea which is the very heart of the Industrial Recovery Act.

On the basis of this simple principle of everybody doing things together, we are starting out on this nationwide attack on unemployment. It will succeed if our people understand it -- in the big industries, in the little shops, in the great cities and in the small villages. There is nothing complicated about it and there is nothing particularly new in the principle. It goes back to the basic idea of society and of the nation itself that people acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about.

Here is an example. In the Cotton Textile Code and in other agreements already signed, child labor has been abolished. That makes me personally happier than any other one thing with which I have been connected since I came to Washington. In the textile industry -- an industry which came to me spontaneously and with a splendid cooperation as soon as the recovery act was signed, -- child labor was an old evil. But no employer acting alone was able to wipe it out. If one employer tried it, or if one state tried it, the costs of operation rose so high that it was impossible to compete with the employers or states which had failed to act. The moment the Recovery Act was passed, this monstrous thing which neither opinion nor law could reach through years of effort went out in a flash. As a British editorial put it, we did more under a Code in one day than they in England had been able to do under the common law in eighty-five years of effort. I use this incident, my friends, not to boast of what has already been done but to point the way to you for even greater cooperative efforts this Summer and Autumn.
We are not going through another Winter like the last. I doubt if ever any people so bravely and cheerfully endured a season half so bitter. We cannot ask America to continue to face such needless hardships. It is time for courageous action, and the Recovery Bill gives us the means to conquer unemployment with exactly the same weapon that we have used to strike down Child Labor.

The proposition is simply this:

If all employers will act together to shorten hours and raise wages we can put people back to work. No employer will suffer, because the relative level of competitive cost will advance by the same amount for all. But if any considerable group should lag or shirk, this great opportunity will pass us by and we will go into another desperate Winter. This must not happen.

We have sent out to all employers an agreement which is the result of weeks of consultation. This agreement checks against the voluntary codes of nearly all the large industries which have already been submitted. This blanket agreement carries the unanimous approval of the three boards which I have appointed to advise in this, boards representing the great leaders in labor, in industry and in social service. The agreement has already brought a flood of approval from every State, and from so wide a cross-section of the common calling of industry that I know it is fair for all. It is a plan --deliberate, reasonable and just -- intended to put into effect at once the most important of the broad principles which are being established, industry by industry, through codes. Naturally, it takes a good deal of organizing and a great many hearings and many months, to get these codes perfected and signed, and we cannot wait for all of them to go through. The blanket agreements, however, which I am sending to every employer will start the wheels turning now, and not six months from now.

There are, of course, men, a few of them who might thwart this great common purpose by seeking selfish advantage. There are adequate penalties in the law, but I am now asking the cooperation that comes from opinion and from conscience. These are the only instruments we shall use in this great summer offensive against unemployment. But we shall use them to the limit to protect the willing from the laggard and to make the plan succeed.

In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure that comrades do not fire on comrades. On that principle, those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance. That is why we have provided a badge of honor for this purpose, a simple design with a legend. "We do our part," and I ask that all those who join with me shall display that badge prominently. It is essential to our purpose.

Already all the great, basic industries have come forward willingly with proposed codes, and in these codes they accept the principles leading to mass reemployment. But, important as is this heartening demonstration, the richest field for results is among the small employers, those whose contribution will give new work for from one to ten people. These smaller employers are indeed a vital part of the backbone of the country, and the success of our plans lies largely in their hands.

Already the telegrams and letters are pouring into the White House --messages from employers who ask that their names be placed on this special RolI of Honor. They represent great corporations and companies, and partnerships and individuals. I ask that even before the dates set in the agreements which we have sent out, the employers of the country who have not already done so -- the big fellows and the little fellows -- shall at once write or telegraph to me personally at the White House, expressing their intention of going through with the plan. And it is my purpose to keep posted in the post office of every town, a Roll of Honor of all those who join with me.

I want to take this occasion to say to the twenty-four governors who are now in conference in San Francisco, that nothing thus far has helped in strengthening this great movement more than their resolutions adopted at the very outset of their meeting, giving this plan their instant and unanimous approval, and pledging to support it in their states.

To the men and women whose lives have been darkened by the fact or the fear of unemployment, I am justified in saying a word of encouragement because the codes and the agreements already approved, or about to be passed upon, prove that the plan does raise wages, and that it does put people back to work. You can look on every employer who adopts the plan as one who is doing his part, and those employers deserve well of everyone who works for a living. It will be clear to you, as it is to me, that while the shirking employer may undersell his competitor, the saving he thus makes is made at the expense of his country's welfare.

While we are making this great common effort there should be no discord and dispute. This is no time to cavil or to question the standard set by this universal agreement. It is time for patience and understanding and cooperation. The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away, but, on the other hand, no aggression is now necessary to attain those rights. The whole country will be united to get them for you. The principle that applies to the employers applies to the workers as well, and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit.

When Andrew Jackson, "Old Hickory," died, someone asked, "Will he go to Heaven?" and the answer was, "He will if he wants to." If I am asked whether the American people will pull themselves out of this depression, I answer, " They will if they want to." The essence of the plan is a universal limitation of hours of work per week for any individual by common consent, and a universal payment of wages above a minimum, also by common consent. I cannot guarantee the success of this nationwide plan, but the people of this country can guarantee its success. I have no faith in "cure-alls" but I believe that we can greatly influence economic forces. I have no sympathy with the professional economists who insist that things must run their course and that human agencies can have no influence on economic ills. One reason is that I happen to know that professional economists have changed their definition of economic laws every five or ten years for a very long time, but I do have faith, and retain faith, in the strength of common purpose, and in the strength of unified action taken by the American people.

That is why I am describing to you the simple purposes and the solid foundations upon which our program of recovery is built. That is why I am asking the employers of the Nation to sign this common covenant with me -- to sign it in the name of patriotism and humanity. That is why I am asking the workers to go along with us in a spirit of understanding and of helpfulness.

This needs a BUMP.

A.B.

"There was no malfeasance involved!"

"This was an honest disagreement about accounting procedures ...."

"There was no malfeasance, no attempt to hide anything."

- The inestimable George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.; July 8, 2002

One has to ask, as did Bob Herbert recently in an op-ed piece in the NY Times,

"Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to FDR and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?"

We got stupid and lazy, jeffmoskin, that is what!

Real stupid, and very lazy!

And the rest was easy, once we got to there!

And now, here we are!

And how can anyone really be surprised?

After all, we were all there as it was happening!

Of course, we didn't have the internet during most of that time, and so, we could never meet to compare notes before all of this, so that the decline might have been caught in time, and so ......

Here we are!

Talking about it, after the fact!

Franklin Roosevelt was probably the greatest president of the twentieth century.

Apparently Bush just is taking one aspect of FDR in considering himself like him; they were both president when America sustained a sneak attack. Another interesting similarity is both are accussed by political opponents of knowing of the sneak attack before hand. Beyond that, there just isn't much to compare.

Welcome aboard from me, anyway, Marine, and your comment above about "sneak attacks" that we knew were coming really does make a point, although the "ends" are miles and miles apart, which is Pearl Harbor, on the one hand, and 9-11 on the other.

In my mind, I cannot reconcile 9-11 into the same category as Pearl Harbor, in any way!

9-11 just seems so very phoney to me somehow, when I keep going back through the whole scenarion that was supposed to have played out on that day, including all of these hi-jackers literally seeming to waltz right through the airports and into the cock-pits of those four hijacked planes!

What is this, now, is all I could think of that day, and to be truthful, I still wonder!

CUI BONO?

Not the "other side" and that is a fact!

Kind of reminds me of all those "dumb" indian tribes out west who would always burn out a settler and kill his whole family the day before the Cavalry was about to depart because there had been no Indian trouble for quite a while!

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings!"

"And folks, this is unacceptable in America!"

"It's just unacceptable."

"And we're going to do something about it!"

- An angry George W. Bush, railing on and on about how poor, and incompetent American marksmanship really is, apparently, in Philadelphia, on May 14, 2001!

"One person can make a difference, and every person must try."

- John F. Kennedy

Evidently, George W. Bush only likes straight shooters, like himself.

#$#%^**(^&%$ <<< sounds of coughing and choking by people who are trying to keep from throwing up.

A.B.

Very right, Marine.

Any resemblance between Bush and FDR is strictly coincidental and bears no relation to real life.

There is, however, one person who believes that the two are similar.

And who is that?

Answer: George Bush

A.B.

'K, now your just scaring me.

So he's not dumb, just mad then. There is NO comparison, only contrast. One led us out of the Global Depression caused by the Greedy Old Partys control of all three branches of government, and won the Global War caused by that Depression. The other wants to undo seventy years of REAL "hard work" about which you know far more than I A.B. There IS no comparison. It's the Raw Deal vs. the New Deal, and the only comparison I can think of that comes close to being similar is too blasphemous for me to make.

I agree. He really is mad.

Plus, he is much craftier than many people realize.

A truly dangerous combination.

A.B.

You know, of course, Mr. A.B., that "crafty" is an old-fashioned word that in this world of today has lost a lot of its meaning, because "craftiness" is now so common in OUR America that it no longer stands out as it did in the days of my youth, anyway, and I wonder how many younger Americans actually appreciate what you are saying when you say that George W. Bush is "crafty"!

For an example of that, all one has to do is to read through an article that I posted on old "Cottie" Bush, the grandfather of George W., where the Bush family is defending old "Cottie" dealing with the Nazis during WWII by saying that compared to what goes on today, why, pshaw, old "Cottie" Bush "tweren't doing nothing a'tall!"

SO!

Craftiness!

And as an older America who can recall when there was a lot less of that "quality" permeating our society here in OUR America, I must agree with you in your assessment, but I would disagree with you in this one regard, that people don't know how "crafty" George W. Bush and the Bush family really are.

Somehow, between the time of the days of my own youth, here in OUR America at the close of WWII, when TRUTH, JUSTICE and the American WAY were still extant, and when America was the "WHITE KNIGHT" to the beleaguered and downtrodden peoples of the world, including Americans, and now, when what is now called "AMURKA" seems to have become the dirtiest "player" on the playing field, the "PLAYGROUND THUG", or "BULLY", that every decent person on the face of the earth has learned to fear for its callous disregard for rule of law, and human life, and suffering; this "CRAFTINESS" inherent in George W. Bush seems to have become a CHERISHED QUALITY in an American leader, and so, I would say, BECAUSE OF HIS "CRAFTINESS", George W. Bush IS president of America.

We are the generation past, Mr. A.B.!

OUR values are the values of a generation past!

Why work hard when you can steal instead?

Why be honest, when dishonesty pays so well?

IF you are a REPUBLICAN, and if it "feels good", and if you have your "protection" money paid up, why, then you just go ahead and do it, and don't fear!

FOR nobody will place a glove anywhere near you, let alone touch you, and that is that!

And who is going to do a thing about it, when you are paying your protection money into the local political organization in your area that "runs" things where you are, and so can CRUSH anyone who dares dissent?

OUR time has passed here in America, and it is now the start of a brand new day, and George W. Bush is the HEROLD ANGEL of that brand new day!

And craftiness is the quality in demand, now that that day has arrived!

I think you are really talking about the desirability of having craftiness in a leader VERSUS having a leader who embodies honesty and integrity, and here, Mr. A.B., you are showing your age, and your up-bringing!

Times have changed, Mr. A.B., or so I have been told anyway, and now, IT IS THE TURN OF A WHOLE NEW GENERATION, and to them, people like you and me are just "OLD", and in the way!

SO!

As a result, we don't have another FDR, because he too is OLD and IN THE WAY!

Instead, we have what "MODRIN AMURKA" wants, which is an ignorant man named George W. Bush, and that is how I see it, on this fine 29th day of April, in the Roman year 2005!

And God help America indeed, because it is a sure thing that George W. Bush both can't, and won't, because being for the GREED and out-right "pig-ish-ness" in America as he is, George W. Bush does not stand for America and American values in the first place, AS WE KNEW THEM TO BE, and he never did, as far as I can see, and because he is just plain incompetent, and mean as a black snake, to boot!

And that to me is the most dangerous combination for this REPUBLIC that there ever can be, and now we have it, in spades.

Au Contraire, I think he is as dumb as a doorknob. However, his coterie of villains, the neo con men and the vulcans, are viscious, sef-serving, greedy b*stards.

There. I feel better now. I'll go take my medication.

jeffmoskin - no argument there. I have thought for along, long time that Emperor Bush is being played as a sucker by his coterie, as you mention.





Guess, I'll have to use more up to date words. I use a cheap paperback dictionary, torn pages, cover missing. 20 plus years old. Anyhow, this old dictionary of mine has this to say about crafty: subtly deceitful; sly; cunning.

Now, that's what I mean about " crafty ". but if today's readers think it means something else, that word is history as far as I am concerned. How about
" devious " or shifty, or sneaky, or two faced, or tricky, or dishonest, or hypocritical, or chronic liar, or so on?

When it comes to my describing Mr. Bush, I want to be real clear.

A.B.

Wow, I've got a copy of that same dictionary!

SO!

How about that for coincidence, will you?

It's the Ike thing again. Remember, during the first stolen election, how one of Bushs old college roomies said he's party all semester, stay up all night cramming before finals, then squeek by with a low C? I could forgive dumb; the Commander-In-Thief just can't be bothered to think. He has people he pays for that.

Ike went to West Point, was a star student, and really did do his homework. Bush the lesser, was a Cheerleader, partied, was a C student, and would never have been admitted (we're talking Yale and Harvard here) if it were not for Bush the elder.

You may have your problems with Ike, and I'm not a big fan of his (as president either) but he served well in WW II, and became an American Father Figure after VE day. Both parties wanted to run him for president, but as was said, Truman wasn't yet ready to take the train back to Independence.

So, I don't think it's the "Ike thing..." I think it's the Bush thing.

I think a point to be considered, Morambar, is that our individual memories of Ike vary, but we have those memories, whereas you missed that period of time, and so, only have books to read on the subject, or perhaps you have heard older people talking about it, but either way, what you say about Ike, to me, is merely talk, because it is without sufficient substance to enter my stream of consciousness to change anything in there.

I was a soldier, Morambar, and a damn good one at that!

So I can and do judge people as a soldier who has been in combat would do, and in that light, I admire Ike for what was achieved under his leadership, because it was his leadership, and no one can take that from him, Morambar, no one!

You have too much intellect to waste your credibility trying to take on dead men like Ike, Morambar, and in the end, it serves no purpose, beyond belitting your own self in the eyes of a quite diverse world in here who only knows you from your words on a virtual piece of paper in here!

I sincerely doubt, because I have done some of my own "research", that many of the people who voted for George W. Bush have the slighest idea who Ike even was, and so, I doubt, for the same reasons, based on the same research, that Ike made any difference whatosever in why these people voted for George W. Bush, which to me, was for one of two reasons, to wit:

a) they were scared out of their wits, and so, mindlessly pulled George W. Bush's lever as their self-ordained savior; or

b) they wanted someone in there who was not only not afraid to spill a lot of Arab blood, but would actually pay a lot of money to a lot of people to have them go over there and do it for him, with no threat of punishment of any kind for killing people that George W. Bush wants killed!

What a deal!

"Yessir, I like that George W. Bush!"

"Where do I sign up, and how much do I get paid?"

"Yaaahooo!"

Ike was dead-set against such stuff, and I liked Ike because of that, and it took a damn strong man in OUR America back then to stand up against all the bigotry and discrimination that was rampant in OUR America back then, and Ike had that courage!

Now, all these years later, George W. Bush is restoring the bigotry and hatred and discrimination, and he is reversing Ike in that regard, by putting the "power" of "his" state behind those who Ike stood up too, which is the haters in OUR America!

To further illustrate the good point that Livyjr makes here, Morambar, it would be like me expounding on the virtues and vices of General Jack Pershing.

And who is General Jack Pershing, you ask?

General Pershing is the best known American General from World War I.

It is probably a well known fact that I am without a doubt the oldest member on this forum. However, World War I ended before I was born, so the only things I know about General Pershing are what I read so therefore what I know about this man is only what the writers of the articles about this man know, or think, or care to divulge. If for some reason they wish to portray him in a negative manner, I could have negative feelings about him. And vice versa.

Skepticism,thinking for yourself, are key.

I hope you are not offended by a couple of old timers like Livyjr and I giving you some advice you did not ask for.

Frankly, there have been many incidents in my life where I could have used some good advice from a neutral person.

A.B.

Boy, isn't that ever the truth, Mr. A.B., that there are indeed moments in life when good advice from a neutral person is not a bad thing to run into when it is needed!

Maybe we're given long lives so that we can finally learn something from the days of our youth passed by in ignorance of what life can really be like, once you get old enough to get over being young and foolish!

But how else can we learn, I guess?

Don't forget me. I'm 63.

And a half.

Morambar ----- Please do not be offended by advice given to you by jeffmoskin, in addition to advice given byLivyjr and A.B.

jeffmoskin gives it with the experience that comes from also being an old timer.

He is 63

and a half years old.

A.B.

What kind of putz would I be if I didn't take, or at least consider, advice from people twice (or more) my age. 'Course, my father would've been 69 yesterday, and his assessment of Ike wasn't much different than mine (see, I do listen to my elders.)

Having said all that, I suppose I do come down a little hard on Ike sometimes. I don't think he always minded the store the way he should have, and I've ALWAYS thought a lot of his mystique stems from George Marshalls accomplishments. Plus I'm still a little ticked at him for letting the Russians take Berlin instead of Patton so Patton wouldn't steal the thunder Ike wanted to parley into a Presidential run. The past sixty years or so would've been a lot easier if the Russians stopped at the Oder; no space race, for example.

But the fact remains, Ike was nobodys fool, and he was hardly the soulless mercenary we have now. Probably his biggest failing was believing that his Presidential subordinates had the countrys best interest at heart and didn't need to be micro-managed to insure their loyalty. There are a LOT of parrallels between Ike and Grant. Grant was scrupulously honest; his administration was one of the most corrupt in history because he trusted his friends. Ike may not have known everything that was going on because he was too trusting (though I still think he wanted to be President more than he wanted to be President, if you take my meaning,) but the Commander-In-Thief doesn't WANT to know. He revels in his ignorance. To briefly return to topic, the Commander-In-Thief cashiers generals for honesty; FDR let them run the war. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is no longer for doing his duty and telling Congress the truth; FDR wouldn't let Marshall go to Europe because he couldn't spare him. Night and day.

And yes, I do have some familiarity with ol' Black Jack, though not as much as our later generals. Before he became a nuke, and before WWI, Black Jack was dispatched to deal with Pancho Villas raids over the border. He had a young officer that was really gung-ho, and, on being informed that a couple of Mexican bandits were in the area, the young officer hopped in some kind of motor vehicle (don't think we had jeeps yet) and came back at dawn with the pair strapped to the hood, to bandit no more. Pershing was so impressed that he made the young officer his aide, and took him to France for WWI, where he would request a combat assignment and take part in some of the bloodiest fighting of the war in the Argonne forest, receiving the Purple Heart. A generation later, that young officer returned in command of the Third Army to the same locale, and based on his performance there and throughout the war, I'd say Pershing was a pretty good general and commander.

I'll try to tone it down a bit, at least when I'm speaking on the basis of second or third hand sources. It's worth noting that Pearson diaries were PRIVATE diaries not intended for publicaton and not published until years after his death. Of course, that means I rely not only on his veracity but that of his son-in-law as well, but again, in large part they have only confirmed things I long suspected. I certainly don't think Ike sold his country out for some pretty baubles. That dubious "honor" goes to the Commander-In-Thief. Dante places Brutus and Judas in the ninth circle of hell, in the maw of satan himself. Wonder if there's room for a traitor to God AND country? Guess I'll leave that call to Someone qualified and entitled, but I can't help wondering....

In the end, who you want to listen to is your own self, Morambar, is what I am trying to say!

Everybody is going to have an opinion, and if you have enough leisure time in life, why, you could collect a veritable mountain of opinions on all kinds of things, and then, where would you be, if all you had was a collection of the opinions of others, but nothing of your own that was tried and tested and true?

Learn people, Morambar, which is more than just listening to their opinions.

And when you hear someone's opinion, consider the "why" as much as the "what".

When silence is golden, why did someone bother to speak?

In here, that is clear, of course!

Mr. A.B. has expressed what I consider to be disgust at the efforts of this present incumbent, George W. Bush, to raise himself up in the eyes of the world by comparing people like FDR to himself, as though HE, GEORGE W. BUSH, WERE SOMEHOW THE MEASURE of what a man must be, as well as an American president!

Now, that is an opinion, and I take it as such, because Mr. A.B. tries not to present it in any other manner, and that is good.

Mr. A.B. does not say one is a good man, and one is a bad man; rather, he says, "HEY, I was alive back then, I saw, I heard, I remember, and not having a head chock-full of absolute HORSE****, I am going to question what this young pup of a Bush is saying here!"

And that is quite explicit!

As for me, I don't have those direct memories of Roosevelt, FDR, that I can call up, because I don't have those memories!

I wasn't there, and so, I personally am at a loss to say, directly, what the comparisons between the two might actually be, but to me, since George W. Bush is what I consider to be the most inept, ham-handed incompetent president that we have had in the last sixty years, and since I can and have read of FDR's accomplishments, I can say in my own opinion that George W. Bush is no FDR, and so, George, while you can keep on kidding yourself, don't try it with me, because I am not into accepting illusions over reality as the basis for my future actions.

If I didn't learn that the first time I got shot in the head in Viet Nam, the second time sure did cure me of any lingering ignorance over what the bear does when you see him going into the woods, and so, I pass that on to you, Morambar!

Work on being discerning, work on maintaining a healthy dose of scepticism, and you will be a credit to OUR America as a result, and more than anything else, that is what counts the most, to me, anyway.

Bingo!

Ike's problem (Grant's too, maybe) is that they were Generals.

Generals are correctly certain that all their subordinates are on the same side, and that they will follow orders given to them.

Not in politics.

Harry Truman anticipates this in one of his memoirs.

"Poor old Ike. He'll say 'do this, or do that.' In the end, after nothing has been done, he won't know what to do. He'll go off talking to himself."

To his golf ball, in fact.

Didn't sound quite right to me so I looked it up. The actual quote:

"He'll sit here," Truman would remark (tapping his desk for emphasis), "and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."

from "Presidential Power and the Modern President" by RICHARD NEUSTADT

There.

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should."

"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

- George W. Bush, on a roll in Gothenburg, Sweden; June 14, 2001

I think George W. Bush on a bun is a more fitting description.

Maybe a taco.

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions."

"I can't answer your question!"

George W. Bush, on the run, in response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the first debate; Reynoldsburg, Ohio; October 4, 2000

And to think we misunderestimated him.

Well, I don't know if we so much mis-underestimated him, as we really failed to appreciate just how far the depths of this man's ignorance really go down to!

And that "level" of his ignorance is also a measure of the "intelligence" of the people in OUR America who pulled his lever as their choice over all other possibilities out of 294 Million people here in OUR America!

We'll be having Michael Jackson as OUR president next, because he is very popular, and has "name recognition", and he likes children, which is important to get that all-important "soccer mom" vote, or a winner off of "American Idol", or maybe one of those "realty" shows where a bunch of people are stuck out on a desert island somewhere, and sit around on camera talking "smack" about all the other "contestents", because "HUNKY MEN" are all the rage now for president of America, now that Karl Rove has the "formula" down pat!

And so, jeffmoskin, it is entirely possible that fifty years from now, a new breed of Americans will be hailing George W. Bush as the smartest man there ever was over the last fifty years, here in OUR America, at least, and maybe in the whole wide world as well, and what a world that is going to be, eh?

It is even sadder than that when one acknowledges that these fools do not even create wealth like the robber barons who were at least industrious and even courageous in some of their risks and actions...

But Cheney & Co. trade on their government knowledge to secure wealth from others and then jump back into government to use tax dollars to increase the wealth of their former companies and their mutual interests.

Ther ought to be a law...

I know the Democratic party isn't pure in this regard, but they never sunk to the level of the Republican party...

You crack me up, Livyjr.



I don't know. BushCo HAS IN FACT increased the oil reserves under "OUR" control. So far, the war has added only $1 to $2 per barrel, or about 5 percent. And, they ELIMINATED Saddam who was willing to accept the despicable EURO as payment for oil (his only crime in BushCo's eyes) thus maintaining the dollar as the world's ONLY reserve currency.

So they did create wealth, in a way.

For the Corporations.

Just like the Robber Barons.

Beware pinwheels!

Watch your temples, jeffmoskin, and endeavor to persevere!

"WHATEVER it took to help Taiwan defend theirself!"

- George W. Bush, full of vim and vigor and bellicosity, on how far we'd be willing to go to defend Taiwan; Good Morning, America; April 25, 2001

Good advice about watching your temples. Another area of vulnerability to keep in mind is that small place just above your nose and in between the eyes. Somehow, stray shots always seem to find places like that. Especially, if you are in your car and someone is shooting at the engine.

I read today that our world traveling president, who in the past liked to compare himself favorably with Franklin D. Roosevelt, reversed himself and said one of the big reasons the small European countries were in such bad shape was because of the mistakes of FDR.

Just because the of the almost perfect way the Bush war, you know, the one in Iraq, is going, is no reason to throw rocks at FDR, according to our military expert in the White House. He went through some pretty tough times himself during the Viet Nam conflict. Always fighting off those pesky mosquitos down in the south, far away from Mom and Dad. That's not so easy.

I know one thing for sure. When World WarII ended, the Americans had the love and respect of people in every country in the world. No people on the street with banners that said " Roosevelt the war criminal ". Of course FDR was dead, then but because of his reputation, it was far easier for Truman to put his policies in place.

Pardon me if I sound bitter. The thought of Bushie criticising Roosevelt makes me sick.

A.B.

"Bush: U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions"

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

1 hour, 3 minutes ago

RIGA, Latvia - Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II — a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.

Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said.

"We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable."

"In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."

Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.

In recent days Bush has urged Russia to own up to its wartime past.

It appeared he decided to do the same, himself, to set an example for Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.

Bush also used his address to lecture Putin about his handling of the emergence of democratic countries on Russia's borders.

"No good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this region," Bush said.

"The interests of Russia and all nations are served by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace."

Bush spent the day with the leaders of three Baltic republics — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Many in the Baltic countries are still bitter about the Soviet annexation of their countries and the harsh occupation that followed the war for nearly 50 years.

Acknowledging that anger and frustration still linger, Bush said that "we have a great opportunity to move beyond the past."

His message here — and throughout his trip — is that the world is entering a new phase of freedom and all countries should get on board.

While history does not hide the U.S. role in Europe's division, American presidents have found little reason to discuss it before Bush's speech.

"Certainly it goes further than any president has gone," historian Alan Brinkley said from the U.S.

"This has been a very common view of the far right for many years — that Yalta was a betrayal of freedom, that Roosevelt betrayed the hopes of generations."

Bush said the Yalta agreement, also signed by Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, followed in the "unjust tradition" of other infamous war pacts that carved up the continent and left millions in oppression.

The Yalta accord gave Stalin control of the whole of Eastern Europe, leading to criticism that Roosevelt had delivered millions of people to communist domination.

"Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable," the president said.

"Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable."

Bush said the United States and its allies eventually recognized they could not be satisfied with the liberation of half of Europe and decided "we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain."

The United States never forgot the Baltic peoples, Bush said, and flew the flags of free Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania over diplomatic missions in Washington.

"And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away," the president said, "the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all."

Putin, writing in a French newspaper Saturday, said the Soviet Union already made amends in 1989 and his country will not answer the demands of Baltic states for further repentance.

"Such pretensions are useless," Putin wrote in Le Figaro.

Bush reminded Baltic countries that democracy brings obligations along with elections and independence.

He said minority rights and equal justice must be protected, a nod to Moscow's concerns about the treatment of Russian-speakers in the three ex-Soviet republics.

Bush applauded the Baltics for supporting democracy in Ukraine and spoke approvingly of democracy progress in Georgia and Moldova.

At a news conference, Bush rejected the suggestion that Washington and Moscow work out a mutually agreeable way to bring democracy to Belarus — the former Soviet republic that Bush calls the "last remaining dictatorship in Europe."

"Secret deals to determine somebody else's fate — I think that's what we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers that consigns people to a way of government," Bush said.

He called for "free and open and fair" elections set for next year in Belarus, now run by authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.

Bush placed a wreath at the Latvian Freedom Monument, a towering obelisk symbolizing this small country's struggle for independence.

While he is unpopular across much of Europe because of the Iraq war, Bush got a warm welcome here.

Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga presented Bush with the nation's top honor, the Three-Star Order, calling him a "signal fighter of freedom and democracy in the world."

Bush has irritated Russia by bracketing his visit to Moscow Sunday with stops in two former Soviet republics, Latvia and Georgia.

He arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday night, ahead of a speech Sunday at an American cemetery.

end quotes

It's a wonder that George W. Bush can say any of this with a straight face, or that he can be ignorant of how hypocritical and false his words really sound when one considers that with respect to Iraq today, in fact, the WORLD's only alleged remaining "SUPERPOWER", under his own leadership, and without support from the American PEOPLE, did in fact do a SECRET DEAL to determine somebody else's fate, which is the Iraqi people, in this case, and as a freedom-loving American, that is what I think we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers, in this case the United States and Britain, that consigns people to a way of government that George W. Bush and "TEXAS TONY" Blair tell them they must have, at gunpoint!

"You're free!"

"And freedom is beautiful."

"And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order - order out of chaos."

"BUT ....."

"We will!"

- George W. Bush, in a fit of soaring rhetoric that makes FDR seem but an inarticulate and unschooled man; Washington, D.C.; April 13, 2003

"There may be some tough times here in America!"

"But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again."

- George W. Bush, Waco, Texas, August 13, 2002

And George W. Bush knows we're going to go through tough times again, because unlike FDR, who brought us out of tough times, George W. Bush is going to bring us firmly back in again, as he restores chaos out of any order that there was in OUR world before he came on the scene and started dismantling things, like OUR Constitutional protections, for instance, and OUR right to a jury trial in federal court for the Northern District of New York!

What democracy, George, what democracy?