Comments Posted By Carol
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
Social Security: Point/Counterpoint
I read another another explanation of the Bush SS proposal complete with examples. Young people would have to be nuts to buy into this proposal. In the example a person invests 1000 a year for 40 years with a 4.6 rate of return (that is adjusted for inflation and it is generous). At the end of the 40 years, the now old person can keep and use, however they wish, the amount that exceeds what they would have earned in benfits under SS. Assume the account grows to 220K or so 151K would be a dollar for dollar offset so the old person gets to keep the 60k left over. The 151k must be invested in an annuity. If you die before collecting the money back too bad so sad. The payout in benefits under this plan is 15k a year or the level of poverty. The government hopes you will invest the remaining 60k in an annuity to bring your beneifts up to 20k a year. The plan does not address the insolvency problem as I thought earlier. Worse yet the government must borrow 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and another 3.4 trilion in the 10 years follwoing that. Now this is where I get confused. Greenspan warned just the other day that if we did not curb the national debt that it was going to start impacting our market. In the report it talked about the fact that the US is currently borrowing money from other countries to keep our economy going but because Japan and Germany (where we borrow the most) is ageing faster, the personal savings that we have been borrowing to finance our growth will no longer be available as these poeple start using up those personal savings to finance their retirements. So where are we going to borrow the money from and if the debt impacts our markets then how is investing into personal accounts suppose to help mitigate the loss in social security benefits? Those accounts will break even at best and face an increased hazard of actually losing money because of the slowed market created by the borrowing needed to create the accounts in the first place! The government will not be able to borrow against the SS trust fund because by then (thanks to the loss of income to personal accounts) the government will actually be drawing down the trust fund to pay benefits. Who or what is benefiting from this proposal? Is anyone out there connecting the dots?
» Posted By Carol On 05/February/2005 @ 10:25 am
A lot of folks have made some very good points but there has also been a lot of massaging of facts and figures going on. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that if fewer people are paying in to the pool for an increasing number to draw out of the pool then the system cannot continue to pay out the same level of benefits. So the system needs tweaking. Not dismantling but tweaking. Those of you who argue for dismantling the system ignore the fact that the system serves a purpose and that ultimately it is in everyone’s best interest, including the government’s. Bush has modified his original proposal. He is going to limit the investment possibilities and automatic rebalancing will be a feature, two things I originally expressed as beign necessary for my buy in to his proposal. The private accounts still won’t be your money except for the percentage that exceeds what you will drawn in benefits and that money must be reinvested in an annuity. This is good too and addresses my concerns that younger folks woudl squander the money and still have nothing for retirement thus increasing the burden on society. You will not have the right to use the money before retirement. The draft I read did not explain who would be administering the accounts. that is still a concern of mine. Apparently, libertarians were not invited to the table when this plan was drafted. Oh and it appears that I will be included in the plan. In fact the plan will be offered to boomers (1950 to 55) and those born between 56-64 first. So Ashley I suggest you bite the bullet, curb your spending tendencies and put money into your IRA becasue hsi proposal is not going to give you anymore money than SS would have. It jsut seems designed to keep the system solvent.
» Posted By Carol On 04/February/2005 @ 8:48 pm
Hey Chester I am not retired. I have ten years to go at least. I am one of the folks paying the maximum and will be for another ten years at least. My parents will not be an issue in another 10 years or so they are well in to their seventies. They get a whopping $772 a month. If they decide to retire to Florida I can assure you it will not be financed on a social security income but on their savings that they carefully accumulated over the years. My folks were a penny pinching generation. As for my generation I am not sure how good we were as a whole at saving. The younger generations 20s, 30s, and 40s are more about consumption and living for the moment than saving for the future. The younger you get the worse it gets. Social Security is not suppose to be your only source of retirement income. It shouldn’t even be the biggest part but you younger people act as if it should be and act as if privatizing it will enable you to save the money you should already be investing in your future. Social Security needs tweaking just as it has every decade since its inception. However, the bigger problem is Medicare/Medicaid, and the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the world. No one, certainly not baby boomers, is saying we should not tighten our belts and fix these problems. However, before you go bashing us boomers, who aren’t on the dole yet, take a look at all the handouts and where they are going. Don’t just target us boomers go after everyone. I tell you what Chester dismantle social security. Let me keep my money. Pay out beneifts to our current retirees until there is no money left. I will take care of myself and you take care of yourself and we can both take care of our parents respectively. My parents won’t be around as long. I come from a big family and my parents were, like I previously mentioned, good at saving. It will not be that big a hardhip for me. My family will get by. When your family finds the burden of caring for multiple generations burdensome don’t come looking for a handouts in the form of housing or fuel assistance, cheap FHA loans, student loans, pell grants, WIC, free clinics for immunizing children, higher property taxes for schools, child tax credits, or the myriad of other handouts given on behalf of children, students, parents or the elderly. Cut everybody off the gravy train. Everyone can do for his or her self, the placment of individualism above community. Altrusim, who needs it, right?
» Posted By Carol On 04/February/2005 @ 2:58 am
Maybe rjasko apparently is more informed on the subject of social security than I am. Instead of telling Ashley to do her homework I guess I should have said we both should do our homework. I wasn’t aware that I or my generation of boomers had voted ourselves a largesse. I don’t know what this perception is based upon. Most of us aren’t even drawing social security yet and have been aware all of our lives tht we would not receive the same generous benefits of our parents. I cannot speak for everyone in my generation but rest assured rjasko that I have not been depending solely on my social security to see me through my old age. I set aside 25% of my income for retirement. Couple that with my payroll taxes and it becomes clear why I do not bring home but a third of what I gross. I would strongly suggest that you not depend solely on your private social security accounts to see you thorugh old age either. It is suppose to be a supplement. You are already responsible for taking care of your retirment needs. If your investments fail to accumulate (and by the way where are these rosy snapshots coming from? 12% gain over 30 years? The expected rate of return is between 4.6% to 3.3%) then the supplement was suppose to be your security net. Don’t for one moment think that social security is the beall and end all of your retirement. Start saving and stop whinning. I am also aware that that the money that I paid into social security was an investment I made into my country but I still have ownership. The deal was I paid in and in return I would get a pay out in my old age. If the government can renege on its promise to me then what makes you 2- somethings think they won’t renege on promises made to you? If you don’t want to be a true sandwich (supporting kids and parents) era then you best look at protecting your parents interest as well as your own. I do nto fault you for yoru vehemence on thsi subject. I recall well that I felt exactly the same way at your age. The difference was that when I was your age the government wanted to raise payroll taxes to keep social security solvent, which they ultimately they did. The rhetoric of youth was coutererbalanced by the government’s call to make a sacrifice for America and out older generation. This time the government is on the side of youth so no one is talking about sacrifice and older generations. I support personal accoutns and I beleive that social secrity is in need of a tweak. However, don’t rob me of the investment I made in SS so you can start a private investment. (Which you should have been doing all along!)
» Posted By Carol On 03/February/2005 @ 10:49 pm
Excuse me but IT IS my money we are talking about. I have already paid into SS for 32 years. Ashley is talking about the money she expects to pay in but has actually only paid very little so far. And Ashley, you misinpterpreted, the 73% is not 73% of the benefits paid out in 2005 but 73% of benefits that would be due in 2043 if the system were allowed to continue as is. Under the Bush plan the private account that you will be allowed to set up is intended to mitigate if not make up the loss in benefits you would incur due to the change in the program. Read that sentence very carefully Ashley. Your private account coupled with your SS may pay out as much as you might have received if the system is allowed to continue as is.
» Posted By Carol On 03/February/2005 @ 6:48 am
I wish. Boy do I wish.
» Posted By Carol On 01/February/2005 @ 10:05 am
You definitely need to do some homework. You are likely to receive far more in benefits than you paid in. Not as much as my parent generation but yo wil receive as much as my generatio. I have to work longer than my folks did in order to withdraw. You are no doubt thinking that you could realize more for your money if allowed to invest it, however, you could also relize less. You could have a smaller kitty at the time you retire and it of course will not be adjusted for inflation or wages or anything else as over the years you are withdrawing it. In the 60’s SS was changed to index it from inflation to wages because more than 60% of the senior citizens n this country lived below the pverty level. Society was paying for them through other programs or simply forgetting them. You know perfectly well that SS does not go for welfare or any of the other things yo mentioned. Your SS will go to me to pay me back for the investment I made into my parents. What also concerns me is the removal of the safety net for your generation. You need to think os SS as a supplement and nto your primary retirement. You have a an IRA right?
» Posted By Carol On 02/February/2005 @ 8:13 pm
You need to do your homework. I have no problem with permitting folks in your age group to invest a protion of your social security, a proposal by the way that was first floated by the Dems. I do have a problem with Bush changing the indexing of social security from wages to inflation. In 1984 the government revamped the retirement system for federal employees. The civil service retirement system was abolished. A new system was enacted in 1987 called FERS. For thre years there was no retirement system in place. I just happen to have gone to work for the federal governement in 1984 two months after CERS was abolished. FERS is a three prong system. One prong is a small stipend from the government. The second prong is a thrift savings account that workers can contribute money into and receive up to 5% in matching funds from the government and the third prong is social security. The amount an employee could contribute to the thrift account has risen over the years from 10% to 15%. When the accounts were first offered to us we were given a calculation formula for determining how much money we would need to save in our thrifts in order to be able to retire, along with our social security and small stipend based on the amount we wanted to have yearly. In order to ensure a yearly income of 30k I needed to save 400k. Well it is 20 years later and I am not even half way there. The down turn in the market in 2000 and 2001 (the market has never returned to its pre 200 levels) wiped out half of my thrift. That is the gamble you take. I accept that. Now however, Bush wants to reduce by nearly 60% the amount of social security that I would have been eligible to draw over the remaining (hopefully) 15 years of my life. That is calculated on my being able to withdraw at age 67. I might get lucky and realize only a 40% reduction. I had planned to retire at 60 but not withdraw until 67. I am too old to start investing part of my social security besides I am already gambling with my thrift. Social security was suppose to be my safety net. The Congressional Oversight Office calculates that with no change in the current system that by 2043 recipients will only be able to recieve 73% of the benefits currently paid to recipients but that will be at 2043 dollars not 2005 dollars. Right now I only pay social security on the first 87k I earn. I am willing to pay it on all of the salary I earn in order that your generation does not have to take a reduction in benefits. I am willing that you should have a portable retirement, i.e., thrift that you contribute to just like I do and gamble with just like I do. The social security administration could administer this plan for the smallest amount of overhead just as the government currently administers the thrift. The mechanisms are already in place. This would save the government a considerable amount of money, money that could remain in the system to pay out the benefits that I have been paying towards for the pst 32 years. Under Bush’s plan I will be an impoverished old lady. Because John and I are both federal employees making practically the same amount of money, any survivorship benefit that I draw from his CERS in the event he died, will be offset against my social security! One of the lovely peculiarities of the federal system. I will not be able to sustain a basic living above poverty level. I realize you are a good and dutiful daughter and that you would never let me starve or otherwise live poorly. However, if you experience the same unfortunate luck with the market that I have experienced then you will not be able to afford to assist me without improverishing yourself at a time when you will be ready for retirement yourself. I am nto totally agaisnt the paln, I am not totally against Bush’s plan but I am not totally for it either and who can blame me? There is also the concern that the additional debt the Bush plan would add to the already burgeoning national debt could cause a downturn in the market further killing my thrift! I am not asking your generation to continue paying into a system that will not be around to give you anything in return. I know the feeling as politicians have been predicting the demise of the social secruity system since I was 20! I am willing to pay social security taxes on all of my income. That is not a raise in taxes for you until you make more than 87k a year and if you were already making that much then I would not feel bad about suggesting that you pay it. I am willing to take a small cut in benfits but not 40% and certainly not 60%. The alternative is that you will pay for my care as an old lady at a time in your life when you probably thought you’d have a little extra cash and are ready for retirement yourself. that is what would keep you from being able to retire!
» Posted By Carol On 02/February/2005 @ 12:32 pm
I don’t happen to think that if due to a fluctuating market, Ashley’s generation does not have the money to survive in old age that their children and grandchildren should have their taxes doubled to pay for the welfare programs needed to support AShley’s generation. What do you think will happen? That America will simply let you starve? So you want them to basicially hedge your bets? I beleive a compromise is in order here that protects the money I paid in, that you plan to pay in and future generations.
» Posted By Carol On 02/February/2005 @ 7:52 am
MarkLevinfan your post caused me to chuckle. Notice how lightly John tread in his response to me? That’s because he knows that I left the Republican party because of its domestic policies and from the looks of things I will not be going back anytime soon. I voted for Kerry and I would do so again today. Kerry would have toughed out Iraq. He would not have withdrawn our troops prematurely and the election would have taken place on Sunday as planned. That cleric Sistani (?) set the time table for the elections not Bush. I don’t say that to take anything away from Bush but simply to explain why the elections would have gone forward regardless of who was in office. The situation in Iraq was already in motion and dictates its own actions. I would have voted for Kerry based on his domestic policies and because I did not want Bush in the position of reshaping the Supreme Court. A Justice sits for life or until he relinquishes his position. You can’t take a bad apple off. Clarence Thomas is an example of a bad apple. This observation is based on nothing more than his contribution to the court since his appointment. I don’t believe in tax cuts during time of war. I don’t believe in a “me” mentality that fuels the excesses in debt and ignores the future welfare of our children. The prescription drug plan is an expensive joke that benefits no one but pharmeceutical companies. I’m tired of the right wing conservative movement trying to legislate my uterus and my morality. Think about it. Abortion is already restricted under Roe v. Wade. Prior to that court case, abortions were legal in most states with very few restrictions. That’s right legal. The fundamentalist movement and the Catholic Church were beginning to make inroads -having abortions declared illegal in a couple of states, which is what led to Roe v. Wade. Don’t get me wrong I like kids, had several of them in fact. But I think I should be allowed the right to determine when to have children and be allowed to confer with my doctor to make decisions concerning my health. I really believe the nation as a whole does better financially when we work to pull people out of poverty even when it means social programs. I really don’t think Christianity needs to be enshrined or supported by our government and most certainly should not be promoted or advocated in our public schools nor dictate what is taught there. I like living in a secular society! I don’t care if homsexuals marry. I just don’t believe it will effect my marriage and it just might promote some morality among them. Think of them as a third sex. I’m okay with them adopting. Besides, science is providing them with a way to have children. I don’t have any problem with them inheriting from one another and enjoying the same benefits as heterosexual couples. And I don’t like big government which is what the Republicans have become all about! Liberal domestic polices, strong foreign polices that is what I endorse and unfortunately that is not what Republicans endorse so I guess I will have to remain a Democrat. By the way I think permitting young people -under 40-to invest some of their money into private accounts, with matching funds from the government or private employers, is a pretty good idea provided it is on top of the normal (or slightly reduce depending on who is making the matching funds) contributions they would make to Social Security. This would make their retirement accounts protable which is a good idea in our mobile society. You can even eliminate the ceiling on deductions for Social Secrity. Let SSA administer the program like a thrift to keep administrative costs down, few choices and automatic rebalancing. They way if the investments tank, which can happen trust me, these young people are not left without a safety net. Social Security is suppose to be a safety net not a gamble. Besides, if you dont’ keep the safety net in place and the investments do tank our country will end up paying for these people thorugh welfare one way or another. I am not wedded to any party. I am wedded to my sense of what is right and wrong and good for the country. Right now I think the Republican party is dominated by right wing fundamentalists. I am not wealthy enough to ignore the threat they pose nor are my children. Change the party domestic platform and I might come back.
» Posted By Carol On 01/February/2005 @ 11:04 am
You might want to pay special attention to this.
My post above is true as far as it goes but I neatly sidestepped one inescapable conclusion. I was not in favor of going to war with Iraq in March 2003. I did not believe Hussein had WMDs. I did not see him as threat to our security and feared that toppling him might well create instability, promote terrorism and cause Iraq to fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist. I did not think of the war as a tool to bring democracy to Iraqis or the oppotuntity for them to elect their own government. To be fair to me though that is not the way war was packaged originally. Origianlly it was all abuot revenge for 9/11 and our impending doom if we failed to strike swiftly-WMDs and all that stuff. Later when the war was repackaged (after the fact or rather after Hussein was toppled with an ease that would be surprising if he had in fact represented the threat he was purported to be) and the spread of democracy now hearalded as the reason for the war I could not listen to the message and I could not buy into it. I couldn’t buy into it because a big part of me screamed unfair! You changed your reasons for going to war because the reasons you originally gave were poked full of holes. This irritated me. Actually more than irritated me. So I adopted the doomsday mode of thinking influenced by sour grapes. By the way, I dont’ know if I would have supported the war in order to bring democracy to the Middle East. I am unable to divorce my feelings of anger over the initial hyperbole of the administration over the degree of danger Iraq presented. I am also disdainful that our own government had so little faith in Americans, that they couldn’t just say right out front that while Iraq posed no immediate threat that the Middle East as a whole posed a continuing threat to the world unless stability could be introduced through the democratic process. I might not know how such a pitch would have gone over with me had it been tried first before trying the scare tactics. I might have still vascillated, desiring our country to attempt other approaches while building a bigger coalition. I do know with a certainty that I do not believe war is the only way to spread democracy. However, hear is the inescapable conclusion one must draw about this war. But for this war, at this time, those Iraqi’s that voted Sunday for a new government would not have had this opportunity. Other approaches might have brought Iraqi to an election but not within two years. And this attempt may fail. A successful election does not equate to democracy. Like a new business, it actually has more chance of failure than success. But maybe it won’t fail. Maybe its time I shucked the once bitten twice shy mentaltity that I have labored under since Vietnam. Optimism feels good! Why the change of heart? This morning I read in the Post about an elderly lady who came out to vote, one of the few in her area. When asked how she dared to venture out she replied “I am not afraid.” If the election had occured at a later date this woman probably would not have been around to participate. Suddenly I was glad that events unfolded as they did because I am happy that this lady got the chance to vote. Finally I found something a reason that made this war woth while.» Posted By Carol On 01/February/2005 @ 12:20 am
Maybe I am confused but wsn’t Kerry following Althouse’s advice? What I hear Kerry saying is that the election itself is great but that it is not the end but the beginning of a long hard road. He is raising national security concerns we he states that Americ is less safe or is it only a national security concern to you when Ridge raises the color code? There wasn’t much the terrorist could do beyond what they did and it wsn’t very successful but do you imagine that they will now take their toys and go home? Or do you imagine that in the face of the elections that they wil redoubble their efforts to undermine the new government-a slightly easier job than disrupting the elections? There seems to be no pleasing you. If a person wasn’t 100% in favor of the war going in you question their patritism, their committment to finishing the job and whether they can be truely pleased that the elections went so well. If you weren’t 100% in favor of going to war or if you are a Democrat anything you say is immediately suspect and never the right thing even when it fits your moulded script. Be honest what you are looking for is the Democrats to say “You’re right, ?Bush was right! Cheney was right!” Until you hear that nothing that is said no matter how thoughtful, how measured or how truthful will meet your test. Time alone will tell if Bush was right. Get over it for goodness sakes and quit trashing the rest of us and trying to define us in an imagine we don’t except. Anyone would think that doubts lurk in your heart the way you constantly seek affirmation!
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 9:15 pm
A picture is worth a thousand words…
Sure I saw a few women wearing western style clothing; however, that used to be the norm not the exception. Being a woman I might be a little more hypersentsitive about the issue of women’s rights in Iraq. From a woman’s point of view Iraq was the best country in which to live in the Middle East. I am not counting Turkey in there because I never know if should be placing Turkey in the Middle East. So yes Hans operating from this point of view I was loathe to go to war in Iraq without exhausting other possibilities, which I didnt’ feel that we had done. Make no mistake though, now that we have committed ourselves to this undertakign I have no desire to leave the job half done or undone as was the case in Vietnam. Losing is not an option at this point. Unfortunately, I fear Ashley may be correct. She is definitely correct that these folks are not ready to handle democracy. They are going to requrie years of ahnd holding and we are goign to have to operate with the utmost integrity. Basically that means no lucrative oil deals or at least not exclusive lucrative oil deals. It is going to take a lot of money and we are going to be there quite a while. We are going to have to reprioritize what is important to us in America sothat we can make the sacrifices necesaary to continue this war in a manner tht is winnable. We will probably need to raise taxes and institute a draft. Of course if we do then support fo rthe war will probably bottom out. folsk will be willing to convince themselves that we did what we needed to do or else that its not worth it and abandon Iraq to fall into civil discord. Time will tell.
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 12:39 pm
If I had to wear that thing I’d cry too. If I knew that in the first and perhaps only election my country was going to have, that my choices would result in the continued need to wear that thing, which I only had to start wearing in the past 18 months thanks to the abolishment of the previously secular society, and possibly the implementation of Sharia then I would definitely cry. There is freedom and then there is freedom. That being said, I am really pleased that the election went so well and by all accounts it went better than expected. This marks a wonderful opportunity for the Iraqis to have a stable country where people are not constantly uprising against the government as under Hussein, the quality of life can improve in terms of basic necessities like water and electricity. I am sorry for the women though. While I hope they have the same freedom they had under the B’athist government my reading of several Islamic Community Forums this morning leads me to believe that this will not be the case. Already the arguing for Sharia is beginning and Sharia reduces women to chattel-very few legal rights for women under Sharia. Well one can hope. One can also hope that this will in fact signal the beginning of the end of our occupation.
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 6:45 am
Actually the chemical gassing you are referring to happened in Hallabaj in 1988. No gassing in 1992.
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 6:12 am
Gee, someone should have quoted this to the Kurds. After 1975 the Kurds split into two different factions, both of which over the eyars since then asked Hussein to intervene on their behalf against the other Kurdish faction. Hussein responded by sending in troops to quell the unrest killing Kurds in the process in 1992 but apparently at other times as well. Hussein did not only respond to one side of the ongoing conflict but intervened on behalf of both sides at different times over the last three decades.
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 2:08 am
This is a nice post. Reading through it gives me the sense of being there except that if I had been there the cute Korean woman would have been on the other side of the table. My eyes are blue. My eyes are blue….
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 1:16 am
Bullseye! Anytime you respond with “whatever” I know I scored a point. Hooray for Hollywood for providing a face to the enemy for people like you, who otherwise would have to look at your own family and denounce us as the enemy. Much easier to caricature our concerns and opinions if you pretend that those concerns and opinions belong to Hollywood; that Democrats or anyone who voted for Bush is one of them (Hollywood) and not one of your own. Put the fight (by that I mean the political differences) back where it belongs, where it truely is, within your own family and then demonize us if you can.
Democrats did not make Hollywood the face of the party. Republicans are trying to make Hollywood the face of the party-the Republican party, who elected Reagan and now want to amend the constitution so Arnold can run for president. Some actors are Democrats and some are Republican-the Republican ones tend to get elected becasue Republicans are way too influenced by …Hollywood. Maybe the billboard was right. Maybe a bunch of people out there did vote for Bush simply because Penn came out in support of Kerry, and Baldwin and the others. Of course if that is true then they are stupid.» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 6:33 am
Tried to leave a comment at Little Green Apples but apparently only certain folks can do that and I am not on the list. I do not approve of the billboards. They are polarizing and this country has had enough of that. Besdies the message is untrue. Hollywood is not the reason people voted for Bush. Is it? The implication is that many folks voted for Bush simply because Penn supported Kerry and Moore produced F-9/11. I sincerely hope that is not true. Surely those voting for Bush cast their votes based on the issues: a belief that Bush was the right man to finish the war in Iraq; a desire to see more tax cuts; a desire to see money diverted from the Social Security System to private accounts that would permit folks younger than 50 to invest it themselves; abortion outlawed or at least severely restricted (its already restricted); an amendment to ban gay marriages or civil unions; the right to teach fundamentalist ideology in schools; the placing of Christianity at the forefront of our politics, in other words creation of a religion state, the continued prohibition of federal funds for stem cell research; or one or another Republican party issue. To have voted for any other reasons besides the issues such as because a certain person was leaning this way or that, is like cutting your nose off to spit your face. I give Americans more credit than that.
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 3:20 am
Great minds thinking alike and all that…
Yes, she is pretty good at that (what is the word you bloggers use?)thing where you disassemble an argument piece by piece. However, I stand by my genocide remark. Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group. In using the term I was referring to the killing off of a racial, political or cultural group. Hussein killed some Kurds but he killed far, far fewer Kurds than he did Iraqis from the Southern region following Desert Storm. His aim was to put down an insurrection not to kill them for the simple purpose of eradicating them because of who or what they were.
As fr the Kurds, after several hours of research, I found that Hussein gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988. At he time the Kurds were supporting -armed support-the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war. The war ended in ’88. You have no doubt heard much larger figures thrown out with respect to this event. The number of kurds reported killed increases exponentially with political rhetoric beginning around 2001. Other than remarking on this fact I cannot offer an explanation for the increase reported. However, the 5,000 figure was recognized for over a decade as is derived from reports from the scientific community and Human Watch groups. I’ll let Burlybasstedinbenicia defend his position.
While I am at it let me address another comment tossed around a lot that is obviously designed to inflame emotions-rape rooms. Bush has repeatedly refered to the “rape rooms” and conservative bloggers have amplified the allegation that Hussein’s government routinely raped women as a means of torture, usually the mental torture of male family members. Those Human Watch groups have been reporting on abuses in Iraq for decades. They lists the different practices employed in the torture of prisoners. Initially (for a long itme) rape did not appear on the reports as a type of torture method used. This may be because rape was not viewed as a tool but as a by product if you know what I mean. Reports in the last two decades included using the threat of rape as one of the practices but applied to the male prisoners themselves. There have been mem who alleged that their female family members were raped before them and at least one woman who alleged that female prisoners were raped (she has since been discredited) but all of these reports came out after 2001. Make of it what you will.
Ah yes one more point. I frequently see the shi’ites reported as making up 80% or more of the population. Before the war this figure was 60%. So I did a little checking and sure enough they make up almost 60% of the population. If you check back far enough you will discover that they were not always the majority. That could be the result of faulty census figures or the result of the practice of having more children among the Shi’ites. Who knows.
Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that “rape rooms” and the 80% figure were thrown out there to emphasize 1) how bad Hussein was and 2) how unfair it was for the Sunnis to control the government when they were a small minority in the country. Well wasn’t he bad enough without exaggerating? You don’t have to fudge the numbers to convince us that a 60-40 split with the 40% controlling is unfair. in America us 49% are pissed because the 51% are unwilling to compromise on a single thing and hell bent on pushing an agenda designed for the Republican party platform. We aren’t even the majority!
» Posted By Carol On 31/January/2005 @ 2:01 am
You think anyone who does not agree with you is an America hater. That was an aside; now let me address the real gist of your article. You want to know why Democrats aren’t repudiating those on the extreme left. Instapundit writes an article about some professor in Colorado. This professor, Churchill(?) did not make the news so most of America hasn’t heard of him. You bloggers gave him far more media exposure that legitimate msm. Democrats see no reason to repudiate that to which they do not lend credence. I am not the least bit worried that this guy will influence anyone or manage to obtain a public office. The same cannot be said of the Republican party, which is why I am no longer a Republican. Republicans have made a devil’s bargain with religious fundamentalist. As long as corporate Republicans can control the economic policies they are willing to let the fundamentalist sector control social policies. Consequently we see fundamentalist being supported and funded by the Republican party, gaining political offices such as councilmen (try the one in Maryland who believes women cannot hold elected office because women cannot have dominion over men) lots of school board positions (although these are suppose to be nonpartisan positions) resulting in a move to water down science, and political appointments to federal jobs overseeing things like women’s reproductive health-headed by a man who does not believe in contraceptives -to him they are abortificants.
Sorry Lngtimegne but the Republicans have done a terrible job of silencing its fringe. In fact they have embraced them and given them their very own niche.
Instapundit quotes Klein to support his thesis when, if you read her article or anything by her, it is obvious she is a liberal-a Canadian liberal to boot. Obviously, liberals are willing to examine and refute those on the left fringe! Democrats from everywhere but Mass. have been marginalizing Ted Kennedy for years. The Iraq war has unfortunately given him back his voice that had all but been silenced and an audience that had all but ignored him for the last decade or more. Boxer is another story. I saw the confirmation hearing and I did not think Boxer was out of line. Rice just couldn’t answer her.
Now let’s look at the righties Instapundit quoted and examine them for their nearness to the middle of the road. Hmm, lets look at Djerjain. He tells a story about an America letftie (meaning liberal, meaning Democrat) who admitted she was secretly happy the World trade Center was blown up -felt a moment of joy. Sorry I don’t buy this story any more than I buy that story the guy told the other day about the Muslim women in the line. As far as I am concerned both of the storytellers, who were right wing zealots should be muzzled but I don’t hear you raising a hue and a cry to silence them or repudiate them. There are a lot more right wing zealots out there than there are left wing zealots. You are willing to coexist with them though because they support your opinion that we should have gone to war when we did and believe democracy can be force fed and that the spread of democracy through force should become an American goal, damn the cost in our children’s lives and economic fortunes. Maybe it is because I am a mother, but I am not willing to sacrifice one of my children to advance an idealistic goal unless that goal is to protect American or to prevent genocide. Iraq met neither of those criteria at the onset of this war. It has now become a breeding ground for terrorism, providing instability in the Middle East which always serves terrorism, fueling recruitment efforts and a place for combat training. Well done! The truth is you have compromised your value system in order to find like minded people to shore up your own opinion on the war. Rather than admit you are keeping company with fringe lunatics you deny their lunacy. That is different from us lefties who admit we have a lunatic fringe but ignore them.» Posted By Carol On 29/January/2005 @ 11:35 pm
Ashley I couldn’t agree with you more. I would never have left the Republican party if it had not embraced religious fundamentalist. I know that there are complete nutcases in the Democratic party too-Kennedy totally repluses me on several levels-but at least I am not afraid of what they might do to my civil liberties. It would be terribly ironic if the American government espousing freedom for the oppressed in Iraq, permitted American women to lose the right to self destiny-the right to control reproduction, hold the job of their choice, earn equal pay, disolve abusive marriages or Americans as a whole to lose the right to dissent, to pracice the religion of their choice, to take advantage of science, to recieve an education based on science and not theology.
» Posted By Carol On 30/January/2005 @ 12:15 am
Scrape off the accessorizing hyperbole and you have a message I think we all can agree with. Often times it is the way we spin our words that makes them offensive to others and not the underlying message. On the other hand, the way we coach our words may make the message persuasive. Prime example, I used the word “spin” in the first example to make it sound negative but I used “coach” in the second sentence to make it sound positive as if it were an attribute. The truth is spin and coach describe the same activity.
All people spin their own reality but now days with regards to politics and political pundits spinning has become an art form. It is a blending of carefully nuanced words combined with an effective delivery and some well marketed endorsements. You got the last two down pat. With a little work on your wording maybe you’ll be working for some politician someday!
» Posted By Carol On 29/January/2005 @ 11:56 am
Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be bloggers…
Okay, let me see if I have this right. Coleman is what a liar becasue he believes there are some people who are skeptical of democracy spreading throughout Iraq into the Middle East? Gee you don’t really think that everyone believes that the spread of democracy in Iraq is a shoo-in do you? Hey not even the majority of Republicans believe that! Or maybe you think that some people are skeptical but the ones shown in the blog from his article are not worthy to be quoted. It wouldn’t have mattered who he quoted, they would have had their characters assascinated and Coleman’s words dismissed and ridiculed not because they are untruthful or even his own particular point of view. They are mocked and he is accussed of spinning when in fact there are people who are sekptical that democracy will take hold in the Iraq and the Middle East. They are mocked because he dares to report the opposing view point. You and powerblog are engaged in nothing more than a form of censorship through intimidation.
» Posted By Carol On 29/January/2005 @ 12:14 pm
Here! Here!
» Posted By Carol On 29/January/2005 @ 12:19 pm
Hey, I’m on the left and I throughly dislike Bush/Cheny’s foreign policies. I would have loved to see them defeated. However, like many, perhaps most, lefties I believe we have to stay to finish the job. That job is not democracy as we know it but stability. Big difference. Muslims have a huge cultural outlook to overcome before they can successfully practice democracy. While we may be ensuring the safety of the Shiites are actions in Iraq have endangered Sunnis. Sorry but Sunnis were not terrorist or antiAmerican before the war. All of them were not Bathists before the war and even all of the Bathist were not bad people before the war. They were more likely to have embraced democracy that the Shiites. (Note that the Kurds are Sunnis.) They were definitely in favor of a secular society, a much needed attribute for democracy to flourish. While I seriously question the idea that it was in the best interest of America to go to war in Iraq, there can be no denying that having exacerbating a bad situation into a dreadful situation, providing training and recruiting oppotunities to terrorists, it now is in our best interest to bring stability to Iraq. Meanwhile, the conservatives of America, neocons excluded, are increasingly clamoring for us to prematurely withdraw, i.e., as soon as the elections are over.
» Posted By Carol On 28/January/2005 @ 10:32 am
But John our treatment of the Indians and Blacks was carried out because it was in our best interest. Therein lies the problem. At the time those folks promoting the policies that repressed, enslaved and resulted in the deaths of many, were beating the drum and waving the flag. Time has changed and so has our opinion of how America handled those situations. We Americans have evolved over the course of time in our pursuit of self-determination and we have experienced a variety of growing pains that have shaped us. Some lessons are hard learned but then maybe that is what makes them stick. When we go into a country for the purpose of reinventing them in our image, even if for the most altruistic of reasons (and we aren’t in Iraq for altruistic reasons though folks like you certainly like to pretend we are) we deny them the right of self determination and they lose out on the lessons we learned the hard way. Force something on a kid even if it is for his on good and he/she will still be resentful. Well it is no different for adults and since countries are nothing more than a body of people, it is no different for a country. The really interesting thing I got from that article was that most of the wars/conflicts that America has been involved in since WWII have not resulted in happy endings for the countries involved. I sincerely hope things work out well in Iraq and I believe that we have a duty to stay for the long haul but I don’t hold out much hope for success. Human rights abuses still proliferate in Iraq, and that is under our handpicked government. So while they may get to vote for a new government that does not guarantee democracy as we know it. It might well result in an elected thuggery, in which case those people may turn there backs on democracy as a failed process, thus setting back their natural evolution to such a state by hundreds of years. Of course thsi is just speculation on my part but that is all you are doing too. And yes John I do beleive we should examine consequences and the potential effects fo our actions before taking military action. In some instances not taking military action is the better course.
» Posted By Carol On 27/January/2005 @ 1:01 am
A really interesting link. The article itself was really sarcastic but the comments that followed were rather educational.
» Posted By Carol On 26/January/2005 @ 1:03 pm
Ah, the posting I was looking for this morning finally arrives! You must have been tired indeed. This is really cool. The only thing that would be better is if I could be there. Since I can’t, at least I can share the experience your adventure vicariously.
» Posted By Carol On 25/January/2005 @ 9:06 am
«« Back To Stats PageJust who has espoused the idea that middle easterners are not capable, worthy, deserving or entitled to live in a democratic society? The closest that I have seen an opinion piece come to expressing a possibly racist idea was a conservative blog site telling a story about a middle eastern woman in this country. It was a ridiculous story, hateful in the extreme. It clearly showed that many conservatives are not in faovr of this war because of the “freedom” it brings to Iraqis but because they are the enemy whose butts need kicking. Sorry kiddo but oposition to the war was not predicated on the notion that the Iraqis are not deserving of freedom but rather that their lot in life could be improved without turning their country into a war zone. Saddam woudl have still been in power and the country would not be a democracy true. Maybe it is wrong of me to think that we should permit them to evolve at theri own rate towards democracy. However, those on the left never perceived Iraq as a threat to our national security, the center of the terrorist world, holder of weapons of mass destruction and certainly incapable of delivering such weapons to our shore. We feared that a war coudl further destablize the region, give terrorist a foothold in Iraq, with more recrituing potential and a new training ground (this part alas has proved to be true) and recognized that there was no guarantee that the government replacing Hussein would be any more pro American. In fact we feared that another government similar to Iran could spring up, a government based on extreme Islamic tenets. A recent poll shows the majority of Americans believe the war is going badly and that we should begin a pull out following the elections. That majority is primarily conservatives. Maybe you are on the wrong side–again.
» Posted By Carol On 20/January/2005 @ 12:34 pm