bush pays off journalist..

[roboticKID]

punkvoter.com reports this..

[quote]Bush Administration found to have paid off journalists...with taxpayer money.

Bush Jr. is trying to sell his right wing agenda to the American public, and the media is buying it. Actually, it's the journalists who are being bought this time, and there have been a handful of stories popping up regarding the White House paying off reporters. Here's one in USA Today, and another from Salon.com.

It's strange that the mainstream media has hardly reported on this, but they probably don't want the rest of us to know about the taxpayer money they're making on the side while they publish bogus stories supporting the president. How much taxpayer money was spent on bribing writers and "PR" last year? Oh, just $88 million./[quote]

[roboticKID]

punkvoter is a bit sketchy to me.. i just wanted to see what you guys thought....

[Justin_stacy]

Wow, this kind of sounds similar to Kerry hiring a CNN "journalist" to work for him during the 04' election.......I wonder if punkdopes had anything intelligent to say about that?

[open mind]

Ok, let's just assume the above article about Bush is true.

I think using 88 million dollars of taxpayer money to pay off journalists is worse than hiring a journalist to work for you.
yupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupuuuhhhuh, it would be.

[roboticKID]

HAHAHAHAHA yeah.. useing 88 millions dollars of tax payers money is pretty bad

but 88 million dollars is only 88 rockets.

[ohlookitspaul]

Here you go


From DailyKos:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."



From New York Times:

Armstrong Williams, a prominent conservative commentator who was a protégé of Senator Strom Thurmond and Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, acknowledged yesterday that he was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote its initiatives on his syndicated television program and to other African-Americans in the news...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/20050107/ts_usatoday/whitehousepaidcommentatortopromotel aw


also, the FCC has launched an investigation into the armstrong williams pay-off issue.

[roboticKID]

well there you go..

maybe punkvoter is not just trying to hate bush and just making shit up..

might be true..

[Justin_stacy]

Ok, let's just assume the above article about Bush is true.

I think using 88 million dollars of taxpayer money to pay off journalists is worse than hiring a journalist to work for you.
No I didn’t say it was better or worse, true or false…just similar...I was just making a point about the ignorant source of the article and the obvious one-sidedness of the story. If this is true its bad, yes, but not new, Clinton did it (and I can offer you up a good book on the issue too) and his predecessors probably did too....The fact is American "journalism" is "bought thought" and the white house has always tried to get positive spin for their ideas.

And if you want to talked about tax dollars going to pay for bias and one-sided "journalism," lets talk about how much of my tax dollars go to the liberal talking points that are PBS's and NPR's "news".
How many million of taxpayer dollars have gone to promote liberal ideas here? How much campagining did they do for Kerry and his ideas?

[Justin_stacy]

Here you go


From DailyKos:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."

.

I'm not defending her but lets at least show what she had to say about the issue.....

Gallagher defends the payments because she is less a journalist than an "expert," and experts take government money all the time. "Nor is it considered unethical or shady," she observes. "If anything, government-funded work is considered a mark of an expert's respectability."

This also explains the issue...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42657

[cal1082]

No doubt that what was done is wrong. No question that there should be an investigation and people responsebile for the payments should be held responsible.

It's amusing though to blaim Bush himself. I'd be willing to bet (and give you good odds) that Bush had no idea. What sense would it make that he knew? These are columnists with an audience that I would not think significant enough for Bush to be on discussions on whom and whom not to pay. As a matter of fact after the Armstrong Williams story broke he talked about it at his press conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush.paidpundits.reut/

Let's use the "Blame Bush" policy when you can connect it with Bush. Seem fair? I realize you shouldn't expect punkvoter to do this (for obvious reasons) but someone with a level head should.

I was also very impressed with how Williams took blame and gave no excuses for what he did. He accepted whatever punishment might come for what he did, and that's something we need more of.

[roboticKID]

punkvoter is completely onesided to every story it posts on its site.

they could make a site completely opposite about and make bush look like the best guy in the world.

however, i do think that something did go on here and that journalists were paid off.

[cal1082]

punkvoter is completely onesided to every story it posts on its site.

they could make a site completely opposite about and make bush look like the best guy in the world.

however, i do think that something did go on here and that journalists were paid off.

There's no question they were paid for their opinion. It's been admitted.

[open mind]

No I didn’t say it was better or worse, true or false…just similar...I was just making a point about the ignorant source of the article and the obvious one-sidedness of the story. If this is true its bad, yes, but not new, Clinton did it (and I can offer you up a good book on the issue too) and his predecessors probably did too....The fact is American "journalism" is "bought thought" and the white house has always tried to get positive spin for their ideas.

And if you want to talked about tax dollars going to pay for bias and one-sided "journalism," lets talk about how much of my tax dollars go to the liberal talking points that are PBS's and NPR's "news".
How many million of taxpayer dollars have gone to promote liberal ideas here? How much campagining did they do for Kerry and his ideas?
there is a difference between publicly funding a network and secretly paying a journalist/"expert" to say what you want them to.
npr and pbs campaigned for kerry?

[Poopy]

Here you go


From DailyKos:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."



From New York Times:

Armstrong Williams, a prominent conservative commentator who was a protégé of Senator Strom Thurmond and Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, acknowledged yesterday that he was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote its initiatives on his syndicated television program and to other African-Americans in the news...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/20050107/ts_usatoday/whitehousepaidcommentatortopromotel aw


also, the FCC has launched an investigation into the armstrong williams pay-off issue.


Hmmmm, where did the other $87,738,500? Lets not start trusting punkvoter for news. I know its hard for you liberals, but you have to start wisening up. Oh and a quick tip, NOFX lyrics arent news either!

[Justin_stacy]

there is a difference between publicly funding a network and secretly paying a journalist/"expert" to say what you want them to.

Of course there’s a difference, few things in life are completely similar. But it is still the paying of public money to promote one, and only one, brand of ideas....and its was not totally secretive either. It is known, at least to people who know something of Washington and the government, that "experts" are paid for their services while reviewing proposals and checking their legality.

Now I will not attempt to pretend I know everything/anything(!) about this exact issue, as this was the first I’d heard of it. But from what I can tell she views her work as though she was hire because of her experts status, and not as a journalist….and she does have the credentials to back that up.

npr and pbs campaigned for kerry?

Ya didn't you know they had elmo and big bird out there consoling babies that Kerry’s face scared?....come on you know what I meant pushing predominately/entirely liberal ideas during an election, running negative stories about one candidate and not another, have anchors that showed favoritism to one candidates ideas while showing contempt for another’s....are all forms of campaigning. Hell the fact that their anchors, during the election results, became insultive, angered, and even cried when Bush became the obvious victor.....Goes far to show what side the channel leans.

People say all the time that Fox's pushing of conservative/traditional ideas was done to promote Bush over Kerry for president. Can this concept not also be leveled against a liberal "news" site too?

[Bishop]

It's amusing though to blaim Bush himself. I'd be willing to bet (and give you good odds) that Bush had no idea.

True. The guy didn't even know that he owned a logging company.

[open mind]

the government doesn't fund public broadcasting because it's liberal.
i don't really watch pbs or listen to npr much but i'd be willing to bet that they're a bit more balanced then you believe.

[scitsofreaky]

I think with PBS it depends on where you live.

[UndefinedBoy]

Hmmmm, where did the other $87,738,500? Lets not start trusting punkvoter for news. I know its hard for you liberals, but you have to start wisening up. Oh and a quick tip, NOFX lyrics arent news either!

His sources are the New York Times and DailyKos, what are you talking about? Don't you agree there should be an investigation?

[Justin_stacy]

i don't really watch pbs or listen to npr much but i'd be willing to bet that they're a bit more balanced then you believe.
That's a bet i'd make, particularly prior to Moyer's retirement..... :wink3:

[open mind]

who's moyer?

[Poopy]

who's moyer?

Bill Moyer, leftist whack job.

[Justin_stacy]

Bill Moyers <---does that help?

maybe not, he hosted NOW with Bill Moyers and is one of the primary funders of Fair.org...

[open mind]

well he must be a great guy if he helps fair, they do an awesome job over there and have an unassailable rep.

[Justin_stacy]

ya.....my thoughts exactly.....

[open mind]

ya.....my thoughts exactly.....
well if they've fucked up on a story i've yet to hear about it.

[Justin_stacy]

No about Moyers.....although it is rather funny that one of “Fairs” major contributors was also one of the most bias news anchors on TV. Go figure right? I wonder if they investigated him much?

*Look up what he called the most important story of the decade when he retired.

[open mind]

No about Moyers.....although it is rather funny that one of “Fairs” major contributors was also one of the most bias news anchors on TV. Go figure right? I wonder if they investigated him much?

*Look up what he called the most important story of the decade when he retired.
i think they have a public broadcasting section, not sure though.
i'll check it out tomorrow i'm out for the night.

[Justin_stacy]

I just looked and it calls Moyers obvious bias "alleged liberal bias" (which is a joke) and makes no direct connections to his show in the PBS section.....But it does seem that they have a particular vendetta against conservative and traditionalist writers. Notice that only conservative/traditional writers have their very own sections....

http://www.fair.org/mediafiles/index.html

Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, John Stossel and Rush Limbaugh......But no Brokow or Rathers or Stewert Smally or Michaels or Maher or Moore sections……? That seems rather odd doesn’t it?

I’m getting the strong stench of a bias here….aren’t you?

[open mind]

I just looked and it calls Moyers obvious bias "alleged liberal bias" (which is a joke) and makes no direct connections to his show in the PBS section.....But it does seem that they have a particular vendetta against conservative and traditionalist writers. Notice that only conservative/traditional writers have their very own sections....

http://www.fair.org/mediafiles/index.html

Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, John Stossel and Rush Limbaugh......But no Brokow or Rathers or Stewert Smally or Michaels or Maher or Moore sections……? That seems rather odd doesn’t it?

I’m getting the strong stench of a bias here….aren’t you?
now i'd like to know how he's biased (cause i really don't know)
as for those guys having their own sections it's probably because they give them so much material to work with and when the "leftists" fuck up it makes national news, but if you look around those guys get ripped on to they just don't get things wrong enough for it to merit their own section, i guess.

[roboticKID]

Oh and a quick tip, NOFX lyrics arent news either!

HAHAHAHAHA

[cal1082]

True. The guy didn't even know that he owned a logging company.

he didnt

[cal1082]

pulling news stories from fair.org is like me pulling news stories from newmax or freerepublic continueously.

[theESCO]

It doesn't matter if Bush knew or not. Anyway you look at this, it's disgusting (if true).

[cal1082]

It doesn't matter if Bush knew or not. Anyway you look at this, it's disgusting (if true).

I agree it would be wrong, but it does matter if Bush knew or not, if people want to pin it on him.

[Justin_stacy]

now i'd like to know how he's biased (cause i really don't know).

Well you can't watch his show, cause he retired. But to make a comparison, do you know who Terry McAuliffe is? Well picture him with his own show pretending to be an independent. And that would be Bill Moyer's show.


as for those guys having their own sections it's probably because they give them so much material to work with and when the "leftists" fuck up it makes national news, but if you look around those guys get ripped on to they just don't get things wrong enough for it to merit their own section, i guess.

Or it could be that this is just another partisan witch hunt site. Which would make more sense, since they seem to be so blind to the liberal bias in the News (which is rampant) and are funded by major liberal donators (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Moyers)........But you could be right too....

[open mind]

pulling news stories from fair.org is like me pulling news stories from newmax or freerepublic continueously.
if their articles have the truth on their side go ahead and do it.

[open mind]

Well you can't watch his show, cause he retired. But to make a comparison, do you know who Terry McAuliffe is? Well picture him with his own show pretending to be an independent. And that would be Bill Moyer's show.




Or it could be that this is just another partisan witch hunt site. Which would make more sense, since they seem to be so blind to the liberal bias in the News (which is rampant) and are funded by major liberal donators (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Moyers)........But you could be right too....
no, don't know who he is either.
it could be, but i don't see anyone really getting a free pass so i doubt it, and i think the bias is the other way around.

[cal1082]

if their articles have the truth on their side go ahead and do it.

To each there own i suppose, but the reasons why i dont like it is for the simple fact that sites like these have a specific agenda. Meaning they'll pick apart and leave out what might hurt their argument to support their agenda. Instead of getting the full story you sometimes only get the good stuff.

Now i'll agree, often they are not lying and can be a useful tool for getting information, BUT if you won't the whole outlook on something simply relying on something from fair.org or freerepublic is quite stupid.

[open mind]

To each there own i suppose, but the reasons why i dont like it is for the simple fact that sites like these have a specific agenda. Meaning they'll pick apart and leave out what might hurt their argument to support their agenda. Instead of getting the full story you sometimes only get the good stuff.

Now i'll agree, often they are not lying and can be a useful tool for getting information, BUT if you won't the whole outlook on something simply relying on something from fair.org or freerepublic is quite stupid.
not that i don't believe you but perhaps you could give me an example?
i mostly use them to fill in the blanks that the rest of the media leaves out, not looking around for other views isn't the smartest thing either.

[Witchbaby]

W has millions of dollars of his own personal money at his disposal. Why would he use the taxpayers money that could get him in A LOT of trouble? I know he comes off dumb...but that dumb?

[Poopy]

not that i don't believe you but perhaps you could give me an example?
i mostly use them to fill in the blanks that the rest of the media leaves out, not looking around for other views isn't the smartest thing either.

This is a quote from their website. Its was originally posted by another website, but fair seems to embrace it

Miramax Films, a Disney subsidiary, had planned to distribute the film. Disney's decision to block distribution provoked criticism from several media organisations.

"The idea that Disney is declining to release the film because it is political does not bode very well for democratic debate in this country," says Jim Naureckas, a spokesman for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal watchdog group.

"We rely on companies like Disney to distribute information and entertainment in this country."

--aljazeera.net (5/12/04)


If they dont have a liberal bias why would they embrace snippets like this and display them on their webpage as praise?

[open mind]

This is a quote from their website. Its was originally posted by another website, but fair seems to embrace it

Miramax Films, a Disney subsidiary, had planned to distribute the film. Disney's decision to block distribution provoked criticism from several media organisations.

"The idea that Disney is declining to release the film because it is political does not bode very well for democratic debate in this country," says Jim Naureckas, a spokesman for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal watchdog group.

"We rely on companies like Disney to distribute information and entertainment in this country."

--aljazeera.net (5/12/04)


If they arent dont have a liberal bias why would they embrace snippets like this and display them on their webpage as praise?
sorry, but what's the question and who said what? you didn't make either very clear.
make it easier for the both of us and post the link.

[Poopy]

sorry, but what's the question and who said what? you didn't make either very clear.
make it easier for the both of us and post the link.

I could jump down your throat about reading comprehension but instead...

You asked for an example of Fair.org's agenda. I showed them supporting F 9/11 and being called a "liberal watchdog group" in an article which they chose to place on their website as praise.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=104

[open mind]

you could do that, but you'd just look like an ass who can't put together a proper sentence (if they aren't don't?).
that's not what i asked for, i asked for an example of fair not the full story and only giving "the good stuff" i'm not denying that they're a liberal group, i'm saying i've yet to hear of them getting something wrong or completly ignoring one side of the story (that would be bias) if you could show me that they've done so in the past i'd appreciate it.

[FinchBulldog2]

punkvoter.com reports this..

[quote]Bush Administration found to have paid off journalists...with taxpayer money.

Bush Jr. is trying to sell his right wing agenda to the American public, and the media is buying it. Actually, it's the journalists who are being bought this time, and there have been a handful of stories popping up regarding the White House paying off reporters. Here's one in USA Today, and another from Salon.com.

It's strange that the mainstream media has hardly reported on this, but they probably don't want the rest of us to know about the taxpayer money they're making on the side while they publish bogus stories supporting the president. How much taxpayer money was spent on bribing writers and "PR" last year? Oh, just $88 million./[quote]
I'd like to assassinate Fat Mike.

[Poopy]

you could do that, but you'd just look like an ass who can't put together a proper sentence (if they aren't don't?).
that's not what i asked for, i asked for an example of fair not the full story and only giving "the good stuff" i'm not denying that they're a liberal group, i'm saying i've yet to hear of them getting something wrong or completly ignoring one side of the story (that would be bias) if you could show me that they've done so in the past i'd appreciate it.

Ok Ok, no need to get testy.
Fair.org is basically all Op-ed. Here is their opinoin. Does not even suggest the fact that SS is actually facing a crisis! Benefits can be paid till 2042? Yeah right.

George W. Bush has announced that Social Security privatization will be one of the top priorities in his second term. Luckily for him, much of the media have already bought into the key premise on which his policy is based: the erroneous notion that Social Security is about to go bust.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2011

Now a poll from a libretarian think tank.
Most people believe there is a crisis!

Despite a drumbeat of criticism for weeks by congressional Democrats and a concerted public relations campaign by powerful interest groups such as the AARP against Social Security choice, 51 percent of those polled by Zogby support the introduction of individual accounts. Only 39 percent opposed individual accounts being part of any Social Security reform.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/press/releases/01-28-05r.html

Now a FAQ from the SS homepage
The money in the Social security trust fund does not exist. That money had been spent and treasury note have been put in their place, among other problems. Social Security starts running a deficit in 2018. That means the trust fund will have to cover benefits until 2042. Wait, what trust fund? There is a crisis.

Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

As the Trustees of Social Security, the Comptroller General of the United States and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board have said, the sooner we address the problem, the smaller and less abrupt the changes will be. The independent, bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board has said: "As time goes by, the size of the Social Security problem grows, and the choices available to fix it become more limited." Addressing the problem now will allow today's younger workers planning for their retirement to have a better assurance of the future of Social Security.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

So what does all this mean? Well the majority of Americans believe there is a crisis, the Social Security Administration believes there is a crisis, but Steve Ackerman, resident douche bag at Fair.org wont even admit to the crisis. If this doesnt clearly display the one-sidedness, then you are hopeless.

The one-sidedness is fine by the way, we need all political postions represented, but lets call a spade a spade.

[open mind]

they can be, i mean that's what the social security people say.
haha, do you even read the articles you post?
"While few voters (14 percent) agreed with President Bush that Social Security was in "crisis," an overwhelming majority (61 percent) said that the New Deal-era system was facing "serious problems" that required "major changes." Few voters (5 percent) accepted the argument that Social Security is fine or could be fixed with only "minor, incremental changes" (19 percent).
where do they say the trust fund does not exist? and i don't see them say anything about a crisis.
your gonna have to keep trying.

[open mind]

Just wanted to make sure you see this thread and how badly you got worked. Think of me as you cry yourself to sleep.
enough with the dumbass private messages man, especially when you just continue to make yourself look stupid.

[Poopy]

they can be, i mean that's what the social security people say.
haha, do you even read the articles you post?
"While few voters (14 percent) agreed with President Bush that Social Security was in "crisis," an overwhelming majority (61 percent) said that the New Deal-era system was facing "serious problems" that required "major changes." Few voters (5 percent) accepted the argument that Social Security is fine or could be fixed with only "minor, incremental changes" (19 percent).
where do they say the trust fund does not exist? and i don't see them say anything about a crisis.
your gonna have to keep trying.

Q and A from SSA website
Ok some call the problems serious, others call it a crisis. The point is the view was not expressed as valid by fair.org

"
Is there really a Social Security trust fund?


Yes. Presently, Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays in benefits. The excess is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, which in turn issues special-issue Treasury bonds to Social Security. These bonds totaled $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004, and Social Security receives more than $80 billion annually in interest from them. However, Social Security is still basically a "pay-as-you-go" system as the $1.5 trillion is a small percent of benefit obligations
"

[Poopy]

they can be, i mean that's what the social security people say.
haha, do you even read the articles you post?
"While few voters (14 percent) agreed with President Bush that Social Security was in "crisis," an overwhelming majority (61 percent) said that the New Deal-era system was facing "serious problems" that required "major changes." Few voters (5 percent) accepted the argument that Social Security is fine or could be fixed with only "minor, incremental changes" (19 percent).
where do they say the trust fund does not exist? and i don't see them say anything about a crisis.
your gonna have to keep trying.

Fair.org was expressing the views of 5% of the people! How can you tell me that they are not ignoring one side?

[open mind]

Q and A from SSA website
Ok some call the problems serious, others call it a crisis. The point is the view was not expressed as valid by fair.org

"
Is there really a Social Security trust fund?


Yes. Presently, Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays in benefits. The excess is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, which in turn issues special-issue Treasury bonds to Social Security. These bonds totaled $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004, and Social Security receives more than $80 billion annually in interest from them. However, Social Security is still basically a "pay-as-you-go" system as the $1.5 trillion is a small percent of benefit obligations
"
that's a fucked up argument, do we not really have a debt because we borrow money?

[open mind]

Fair.org was expressing the views of 5% of the people! How can you tell me that they are not ignoring one side?
fair didn't say social security was fine and that it only needed small changes, they merely pointed out the inaccuracies of what's being said.
notice only 14% of the people believe social security is in crisis (and you just said most people believed it was in crisis)

[Poopy]

that's a fucked up argument, do we not really have a debt because we borrow money?

I dont think you understand how our monetary systems works. If you dont even know what a treasury bond is Its pointless for me to continue this debate.

[Poopy]

fair didn't say social security was fine and that it only needed small changes, they merely pointed out the inaccuracies of what's being said.
notice only 14% of the people believe social security is in crisis (and you just said most people believed it was in crisis)

Againg you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that you were wrong. I can admit I was wrong when I used the word "crisis" I should have said "serious trouble"


Fair.org

"Luckily for [Bush], much of the media have already bought into the key premise on which his policy is based: the erroneous notion that Social Security is about to go bust."

Both a poll of the American people and the social security administration themselves think that its only a matter of time before it starts running a deficit (some say 2042 but its actually 2018 either way its only a matter time). That means its about to go bust unless something is done. Fair.org is wrong when they claim it "erroneous" that social security is about to go bust. If we stood by at did nothing, Social security would not last, period! That is a fact. For fair.org to claim it not is truly false.

[open mind]

it's true, social security isn't about to go bust, the system as it is now can pay full benefits out until 2042, where did they say things will be fine forever if nothing is done? answer they DIDN'T, and i don't see how you can say you know what they were saying better then they can, your just making unfounded assumptions which doesn't show their bias, but yours.
i have no idea what a treasury bond is........... :wink3:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/tbonds_glance.htm

[Poopy]

it's true, social security isn't about to go bust, the system as it is now can pay full benefits out until 2042, where did they say things will be fine forever if nothing is done? answer they DIDN'T, and i don't see how you can say you know what they were saying better then they can, your just making unfounded assumptions which doesn't show their bias, but yours.
i have no idea what a treasury bond is........... :wink3:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/tbonds_glance.htm

Explain to me what you think a bond is, not what some website says it is. I dont think you know what it means that the Social Security trust fund is made up of bonds.

[open mind]

they're like iou's which is why i said your argument of the trust fund not existing is like saying we don't have a debt because we borrowed money to get it.

[open mind]

and before you think you've "won" anything remember what my stance has been all along.
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=58000&page=2

[open mind]

Its funny how you've come the point of nitpicking my arguments for spelling errors instead of being able to discredit them. I guess I chalk this one up in the win column
yeah man your a real "winner"................fucking moron. :lol2:

[Poopy]

and before you think you've "won" anything remember what my stance has been all along.
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=58000&page=2

Thats not even what we were arguing about. How can you expect to convince me of anything if you cant even remember what we were arguing about?

[open mind]

Thats not even what we were arguing about. How can you expect to convince me of anything if you cant even remember what we were arguing about?
i guess i "win" because you apparently don't really have anything left to say about fair. :wink3: