-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/monday-open-thread-whats-going-on/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The federal government’s long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers reach retirement.
That’s double the red ink of a year earlier.
Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That’s nearly $500,000 per household.
When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.
Corporations and most state governments have to declare long-term liabilities when created. The federal government, however, only declares the annual cost of entitlement programs, using the flimsy excuse that future Congresses could adjust or eliminate the programs in the future. That sleight of hand keeps the federal deficit numbers ridiculously low, and it keeps pressure for entitlement reform almost as low.
President Bush tried to address this in 2005, starting with the much more moderate problem of Social Security. Democrats insisted that no problem existed at all, and that the fiscal stability of Social Security was guaranteed for decades. Instead of acting to correct the ballooning deficit in this one program, the Democrats demagogued, claiming that Bush wanted to steal Social Security benefits from seniors — a charge Barack Obama echoed yesterday against John McCain.
McCain voted against adding Medicare Part D, opposing George Bush during the first term, and one can understand why in looking at these numbers. Just in the last year, Medicare took on $1.27 trillion in new liabilities, Social Security $900 billion, and civil-service retirement $106 billion. That comes to almost $2.3 trillion in new liabilities, which outstrips the entire federal budget of 2003. At some point, those bills have to get paid, and that’s assuming we stop adding liabilities from this point forward.
We don’t need demagoguery. We need real entitlement reform that acknowledges reality before American workers become nothing more than serfs providing funding for a massive nanny state.
http://www.theroot.com/id/46565
France has had informal contacts with Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that rules Gaza, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Monday.
Kouchner, speaking on Europe-1 radio, was confirming a report in the daily Le Figaro that quoted a retired diplomat as saying he met with Hamas leaders a month ago.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States. Fatah had dominated Palestinian politics for decades, but was trounced by Hamas in 2006 parliamentary elections. In June 2007, the militant Islamic group took Gaza by force, triggering a crisis among Palestinians.
France has had contacts with Hamas leaders “for several months,” Kouchner said, adding that France was not in formal negotiations. “These are not relations, they are contacts. We must be able to talk if we want to play a role,” the minister said.
A series of contacts constitutes relations, regardless of whatever sophistry Kouchner utilizes. It’s a distinction without a difference, and it flies in the face of the West’s stated policy of non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The more outrageous aspect of it is that Hamas doesn’t target France. How would France react if Israel began a series of “contacts” with ETA in order to “play a role” in resolving the standoff with Basque separatists?
Whatever the international community rewards, it will encourage to increase. If Hamas gets diplomatic engagement without forswearing terrorism and Israel’s destruction, what would motivate them to abandon those positions? Regardless of what Kouchner claims, Hamas isn’t engaged in a border dispute with Israel, they have an existential struggle against the Israelis, and they prove it every time a missile lands in Sderot and Ashkelon.
At least ETA recognizes France’s right to exist.
Given this revelation, and the likelihood that the US already knew about these diplomatic engagements between France and Hamas, the Bush speech appears to quite obviously reference this without explicitly embarrassing France. Let’s go back to the speech (via The Anchoress):
And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
With Kouchner’s statement, the French seem the most likely reference for this disputed section of Bush’s rejection of appeasement, not Barack Obama and the Democrats. Unless they have changed positions lately, the Democrats have never publicly suggested that the US cut ties with Israel, but we certainly have heard voices in Europe suggesting that over the year, before and after Oslo. The appeasers are the ones talking with terrorists to see how moderate they can get while still demanding the destruction of Israel and using terrorism against civilians to strengthen their political hand.
If Obama wants to volunteer that he should be cast into the same lot as Kouchner, then that’s his decision — but it looks pretty obvious that neither he nor the media paid attention to the speech or the situation with Hamas. Obama threw himself under a bus that wasn’t rolling in his direction at all.
That's because Obama openly advocates surrender in Iraq. It's essentially his platform when asked about the War on Terror.
From Rasmussen:
67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure.
Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States. Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure.
What purpose does the name calling serve?
Anon 9:02,
Statistics like this-unfortunately-don't matter.
As far as his positions on Iraq and the War on Terror, Obama is running the '06 election strategy: it's popular to be against the war. The only problem is that now-admittedly, unlike then-the facts on the ground clearly show that, given time, we can win there.
And I guess openly pursuing nuclear weapons to use against us and our allies doesn't constitute a "serious threat." Wonder what does....
We have nuclear weapons and so do our allies - do you think maybe we pose a serious threat to anyone?
Also, d., all the intelligence reports that merit attention have concluded that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons right now. You tell me not to name-call. Fine. But you should inform yourself of the facts.
I hear you in the other thread about women and Obama. I'm waiting until he has the delegate thing all over and finished with before I post about this race.
I'm sure we do. To some countries-Iran being one-it's good that we do.
Setare,
Right now. And I'm sure they want a reactor for strictly peaceful purposes.
But if you believe that, hey....whatever works.
Yes, I'd rather believe the experts than you.
I suppose it's good that we do in case Iran wants to invade the United States, kill our babies, disrespect our culture and religion and change our way of life.
Oh, and I forgot, take all of our oil.
I'm so sick of you fake ass rhetoric repeaters.
Then we agree to disagree. And there was nothing troll-like in that discussion. :)
So how would you have us defend ourselves?
It seems to me we're always on the offensive - this country was established on the offensive.
Fucking war mongers - suited up gangsters and thieves. And, dictators of their non-white patriots.
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny”.
Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.
As Michael Goldfarb notes this morning at the Weekly Standard, even Democrats have started backpedaling away from Obama’s foreign policy. Joe Biden, Gary Hart, and Harold Ford all rejected the idea of unconditional presidential-level talks with Iran. All three tried to spin Obama’s statement into a conditional offer of unconditional talks, such as this quote from Hart: “I don’t think Barack Obama or any other President is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that.”
But what would those lower-level discussions entail that current lower-level contacts do not? Wouldn’t basing this on agreements reached at the lower level mean an insistence on preconditions? Obama has cast this policy as a rejection of Bush’s policy, but without the unconditional talks still promised on his website, he’s essentially opted for the entire Bush policy:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Memo to Obama: We have already offered WTO membership, an end to economic sanctions that prevent investment, and full diplomatic relations to Iran in exchange for an end to and a full accounting of their nuclear program. Iran rejected it, and so we have continued with economic and diplomatic pressure. The only difference between Bush and Obama is the notion that Obama would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, which he and his allies now claim he won’t do even while his website says he will.
Perhaps he should take a few years to study the actual issues and the history of American policy on this subject before running for President. He seems inadequately prepared for serious consideration for stewardship of a foreign policy he clearly doesn’t understand.
I've always wondered who made the US the final authority on who should and shouldn't have nuclear weapons. IMO it's the height of arrogance to say we can be armed with nukes up the wazoo to defend ourselves but no one else can, unless you're our ally (Israel, Pakistan). And as far as the argument that Iran wants the technology for nefarious purposes maybe, maybe not, but I'm not so sure our intentions are so pure on this end as the last 8 years have borne out.
Just an observation.
Which doesn't answer my question. The human species is violent by nature; it's not just "warmongers."
Kitty,
China's got nukes and they're not necessarily our ally. North Korea may well have them, and they're damn sure not.
The difference here is that Iran has openly threatened the right of another country to exist. Take whatever side you want to in the Israeli/Palestinean conflict, but ANY country that would threaten another's existence should not have weapons that would allow them to do that in the space of minutes.
And, generally speaking, the UN Security Council takes the same view.
I get what you're saying, and if you noticed I didn't list China and N. Korea in the parentheses.
As far as Iran, how is their threatening Israel's existence any different from Bush's saber rattling or Hillary's "obliterate" comment? Aren't we threatening Iran's existence? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just trying to understand the difference.
We've never threatened to go after Iran "just because." It's always been in the context that if they go after Israel (as they've threatened to), then they do face destruction.
POOR HILLARY.
By Bserious - May 19, 2008, 1:31AM
After reading this BS in the nytimes about Hillary losing because of sexism, I had to repost this. Had to.
The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums and her claims that the media is pro-Obama. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).
Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success? Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” defends McCain. The list goes on and on. I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast. Senator Obama is a grown man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, (check their senate records) yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie?
She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had. It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 70,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states, have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that he's just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that. This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right? Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to fear black men.
Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done ? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?” Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama the second he steps out of line. Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media.
There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it. You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004.
He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white people uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman. Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it. But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black ass. All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest. So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.
Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!
I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown woman who knows exactly what she’s doing.
She conveniently plays off of gender oppression every chance she gets. Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”
Right on time!
PLEASE give me a link to that post.
I HAVE NEVER posted on Talking Points Memo. That "Bserious" guy is NOT me.
Don't get me wrong, I DID write that particular post "Poor Hillary," a couple of months ago. But I never put it on TPM.
That "Poor Hillary" post was written in the comments section on this (JJP) website. I re-posted it on my blog and encouraged others to pass it around (as some did).
But I have a problem with someone using my screen name and posting as though they are me.
I just had this conversation with "Big Man" from the blog, Raving Black Lunatic. That other Bserious guy posted one of Big Man's posts and he thought I did it.
Once again, I didn't have a problem with people re-posting that "Poor Hillary" comment. But that "Bserious" guy over at TPM is NOT me, and I'd hope that he's not trying to assume my blogging identity.
Please give me the link if you can.
And I am LOVING the anon comments with their unbalanced rhetoric that nobody's buying. I think they're trying to convince themselves. As long as it's respectful I can scroll over it to the next comment!
He's got my post, a post from Big Man and a recent post from Field Negro under his name.
He lists Field Negro's and Big Man's websites for attribution (at the tale end).
He doesn't attribute me whatsoever.
Once again. I AM NOT the "Bserious" over at TPM.
Does anyone know who this person is? It would help to avoid further confusion in the future.
I got sort of caught up this weekend in the discussions at the NARAL blog -- not the initial long thread but a couple of more recent ones. That is some crazy stuff over there!
It's weird to have Clinton-supporting women claiming "women" should support other "women" -- who then go ballistic nasty clearly not respecting the basic humanity and intelligence of any actual woman who doesn't agree with them.
If we don't agree it's because we don't see it like they do -- according to one Clinton supporter, I was in fact insulted by NARAL's decision even if I say I wasn't, because "all women" were insulted and if I say not me, it's because I don't know when I have been insulted.
The push-back against any discussion of white feminist racism is the most overt shit I have seen, and I have seen a lot of push-back when white feminist racism comes up. But in my experience it's usually more subtle or covert than what I see over there. Maybe it's just the situations I travel in or something.
One other poster -- who assumed I was a woman of color simply because I was agreeing with what a black woman had posted (and then gotten attacked for) and myself talking about white feminist racism -- literally told me to "sit down and shut up" (I think there was a fuck in there too but not 100% sure and don't want to re-read it to find out).
And I am really struck by this thing about loyalty & betrayal. I know it's a Clinton thing but I think it's not just that when it comes to the white feminist outcries. One of the commenters over at the NARAL discussion actually used the phrase "traitor to the cause" for those who don't agree with her/support Clinton. (I remember even NY NOW saying this about Ted Kennedy that he had betrayed women or the women's movement or something like that, when he endorsed Senator Obama).
I'm trying to understand WTF specifically this is all about.
I just wrote out some of what I'm thinking, with the idea that I would post it here in this comments section, but I saw rikyrah's comment to b-serious (Mon May 19, 09:24:00 AM 2008) and decided to not post it in case it's un-strategic to publicly say the things that are on my mind about this right now (it's pretty harsh).
And now I see this today:
Geraldine Ferraro, calling Barack Obama "sexist," may not back him
I am extremely extremely hungry to read good sharp pull no punches analyses of this whole white feminists going off about sexism thing as it is coming up now and linked back through the whole campaign.
And my own thoughts about all this are -- well, as I said, pretty harsh and rikyrah's comment gives me pause about posting them right now.
Iran did not threaten the existence of Israel. This is one of those right-wing memes that people such as yourself repeat without actually assessing its veracity. If you know any Farsi (i.e. the Persian language), you would know that this meme is a purposeful, manipulative mistranslation of what was actually said.
Also this: the one country that *has* been a real threat to the existence of its neighbours in the Middle East is Israel. (In case you've conveniently forgotten, Israel pretty much destroyed Lebanon almost two years ago.)
Here's a pretty good essay on this issue, titled "Hillary is White", by Zillah Eisenstein.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/18/9031/
That's why I didn't take the "wipe Israel off the map" statement, and just reduced it to a generic threat.
I read the details, on occasion. :)
I've got a slew of my own I'm holding in lockbox till it makes more sense to roll them out.
___
IMO Feminist movement plus Civil Rights achieved their main and necessary goals 20+ years ago. At present, both groups don't know of a purposely useful next agenda. These groups have devolved into who's-the-most-victimized competitions. I ignore both.
___
After this nomination battle, I bet DNC will change superdelegate rules and primary schedule. Will they establish a shorter per region primary voting cycle?
A shorter cycle assists a more established, or well-known candidate. A long cycle sometimes helps a challenger. A long cycle also shakes out weaknesses that could cripple a candidate during the GE.
Kitty,
We've never threatened to go after Iran "just because."
We took it a step further and bypassed the threat we went straight into war. Why? McCain said as recently as 2 weeks ago -- because of their oil.
And there you have it.
Machine politics in the big primaries is so different from caucus activism in the smaller states.
Open primaries and semi-open caucuses test candidates appeal to Independents and Republicans; closed primaries and caucuses test the candidates strength in the Democratic base.
Proportional assignment of delegates disallows a candidate from ignoring the smaller states.
Have a great afternoon and evening, everyone! See ya tomorrow for the Primary.
Craig, I can't wait to read what you have to say when you open up that lockbox. Between you and rikyrah and anyone else from the JJP crowd saving up -- something to hang onto when I read the crap in the mainstream about "women" voters and all.