This is the type of shit I get emailed every day from all of these sub-Z grade committees who couldn't write an effective fundraising appeal if they were forced to at gunpoint, and have the leadership of a fucking ground mole.

I have always know that the best way to get through a crisis is to DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM, as it is now, and deal with the blame later on. This, and the Dems main problem is just more fingerpointing.

Feel free to completely ignore this rant, just like America will ignore these radio ads.
_______________

Dear David,

On the eve of war in Iraq, our military leaders on the ground were going through the slides of the war plan they had been given by the White House and the Pentagon. At the end of the presentation, they came to the slide discussing the post-war plan, and do you know what it said?

"To Be Provided."

Now, more than two years and $200 billion later, the consequences of this abdication of responsibility appear every day in our newspapers, on our televisions. Military operations that the White House promised would be concluded in a matter of months have now strained every resource our military has, and have put National Guardsmen and Reservists on the frontlines for literally years at a time.

The level of their sacrifice was not matched by the level of the Bush Administration's planning, which could have saved lives. These American heroes have served courageously and without the slightest complaint, going so far beyond the call of duty in the service of their country that it should humble us all. But evidently it has not. Even as they were preparing their Memorial Day speeches last week, Republicans voted to deny adequate health care to the National Guard and Reserve.

That's why I was proud when my good friend Rahm Emanuel told me that the DCCC was exposing the Republicans' hypocrisy with radio ads all over the country during this Congressional recess.

Constituents must know what their Representatives are doing with the power entrusted to them - and now I'm asking you to give the DCCC the resources to keep these ads on the air.

Click here to listen to the radio ad now.

Democrats are united in hoping for the best possible outcome in Iraq, and we are united in the belief that we must fulfill our responsibility to our troops. That means we should extend health care to cover all of our troops, including our National Guard, Reservists and their families. Democrats see this as nothing more than our solemn responsibility.

The Republicans, in contrast, made clear that to them, "support our troops" is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan to hide behind when their policies are criticized.

No more. No more will the Republicans wrap themselves in the flag, empty the treasury into the pockets of their friends, then tell us that we cannot afford proper equipment and benefits for our soldiers.

Help the DCCC make sure this lesson sinks in - make sure the Republicans hear the echoes of their hypocrisy every time they turn on the radio during their break.

Keep these ads on the air by making a gift of $35, $50, or more today.

When we use the National Guard and Reserve as an active duty force, the least we can do is offer them the same benefits that their fellow soldiers receive. Your help means everything, so thank you in advance.

Sincerely,



Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader, DCCC


P.S. - I hope that these ads will help compel Republicans to reverse themselves on this betrayal, just as they have with the ethics rules here in the House and the "nuclear option" in the Senate. It is only through public outcry and pressure that we can force them to change their ways, so thank you for lending your voice - the Republicans will hear us loud and clear. Keep these ads on the air - the Republicans have hidden behind their rhetoric long enough.

Dems also have a problem of muddying their own arguments by trying to bring up every issue at once, i.e. throwing in ethics and cloture in the postscript.

Deal with the problem is right, though. If the "To Be Provided" plan is a bad thing, fucking provide one. That was one of my main beefs with the whole '04 primary season. All these donkeys speaking out about how we should have never gone to war, but that's not the point. You are there now. You must proceed from the present, not several years ago.

Same with Social Security. SS is a Democrat program. It's been amended a number of time over the years, by Democrats no less. To suddenly act as if it is perfect is silly. People want some changes of one persuasion or the other. Be creative. Throw some shit out there, because right now they are getting hammered on the "Democrats bring no ideas to the table" sound bite.

I'm just not convinced there are enough Democrats with the right amount of leverage that are willing to work hard enough to get much done.

yeah, they need to concise that shit up. or at least just mail out 1500 different press staements instead of trying to bring up every issue on one memo.

Democrats are united in hoping for the best possible outcome in Iraq

Oh, well I'll vote for them, then. They hope things go well, and that speaks to my concerns as a voter.

haha




then

bam a new issue to be brought up




as a liberal, here is a common sense idea about social security:

first, we know that it will be solvent for quite a while to come. republicans like to throw out words like "bankrupt", but thats not exactly honest. the system will just not be fully solvent.

for years we have heard alot of complaints about social security monies being gathered into the general fund. so would it not stand to reason that that flow of money could go in the other direction? i.e. when s/s had extra money, that money was used to help the general fund. so when s/s needs the money it needs to be paid by the general fund?

In case you didn't notice, bringing up a new issue in this case isn't detrimental because I'm not writing ineffective campaign literature for the Democrats. Plus, the Social Security paragraph is what would be described as an example used to illustrate another point in failing strategy.

Also, if you had any grasp of nuance or reading comprehension, you would have noticed the no words relating to solvency appeared in my post. Perhaps there are other ways to ease concern among the populace in the form of voluntary personal accounts without privatization or incentives to private investing in new and creative methods, a la former Senator William Roth.

Also two statements:


and



Don't sound like ideas to solve problems, but moreso a notion of, "Oh fuck it, we're the government and it will figure itself out later." Amusingly enough, replace Social Security with oil and you have come very close to a Bush Energy policy and lack of petroleum alternatives..

Well Nancy, on the eve of war in Iraq, the military leaders on the ground really only had one thing about which to be concerned--executing the invasion the following morning. Anything not directly related to said execution would have been a potentially dangerous distraction. Focus was and was rightly the intention.

P.S. You're an idiot.



We pay these guardsment and reservists when they're not called to duty. I've little sympathy for them, they knew the potential liabilities when they signed up. I believe their rights at home should be protected while they're on duty (e.g. their jobs should be protected for when they return), but they shouldn't be paid by their employers for work they aren't doing.



Anything can "save lives". Never leaving your home can "save lives". The potential to have to risk your life is part of the contract when you enlist. We're not talking about conscription here. These folks knew the deal when they enlisted.



If they're not complaining, why are you? Shut the hell up.



If I'm not mistaken, they get tax free combat duty bonus money, no? Reservists are generally covered by their full time employers, no? That's why they are "Reserve", not full time troops. They Guard is not the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines. They don't spend their lives overseas when not "called up". They aren't subject to the constant stream of relocation that standing troops are. They should not be treated the same as the full time grunts, that's not fair to the standing forces.

P.S. You're still an idiot.

What do mean I'm overdrawn? I still have checks left.

i'm too tired to get shouty on this.

I just called WPGC Hot 95.5 FM and gave a shout out to Ray-Ray and L'il Pooky on your behalf.

word. thanks for keepin me in the loop.

WHOO WHOO.

People want changes to SS, but the Republican Party is doing the exact opposite of what people want. Instead of trying to fix the system, they simply want to dismantle it.

What the democrats should be doing right now is pushing for the highest paid Americans to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages. There's no need to privatize/dismantle the system when simple solutions are available on the table. Many democrats drink from the same corporate water as the republicans, so they probably won't put progressive ideas on the table right away, but writing them letters on a regular basis would be a good start. Too many democrats are playing touch football in congress when the republicans are playing tackle.

right away or ever.

i love how neo-cons and pro-millitary folk can spin an arguement:



oh, and....



actually its more like: i'm overdrawn, but i still have money coming in in other accounts so i should stop spending so much out of this 2nd account so i have enough money in it to cover the 1st account

on a slightly more interesting note, i'm going to go fall asleep on the toilet.

Republicans don't want to dismantle it. They'd never have that kind of political courage. They SHOULD move further towards that direction.

Social Security is one of the most philosophically offensive programs around. Its absolute bs that the government should think that I can't be trusted to plan and save for my retirement and that they need to collect money from me and put away for it and earn much less of a return than I could if I were managing my money for myself.

Seriously, what's next. Should we pay a bureaucrat to wipe our asses when were done on the crapper to make sure none of us have any racing stripes on our tidy whiteys.

Yes, but at least by proposing something, they are ahead in the reform game. Pelosi and Reid trotting out some sap story from Podunk, NV and stomping their feet saying "No" doesn't come close to meeting the desires of a new Social Security and retirement options.

I hope you make it there, unlike this man, above.

I also hope your socks match the seat.

Thanks, Ms. Rand, we needed that. Tell that shit to my grandmother mutherfucker and get ready to knuckle the fuck up.

If it were possible that everyone could be as smart and wonderful and long term planning as you, we wouldn't need it...

There's a reason that it is the best and most politically popular government program in history, but i suppose you think that 70 year olds SHOULD work at Wal Mart.

(sorry, Billy, I love ya, but yer wrong)

there are always going to be people that do not save for their retirement. there are always going to be people that are hurt and in need of something similar to social security disablilty. there are always going to be orphans and widows in need of something similar to social security.

to me, social security makes sense. It makes sense in the same way that manditory free public education makes sense. without turning this into an arguement over the quality of public education, it is hard to argue that society is not better off with an educated populace.

what would happen down the road should social security be abolished? what, as a society, would the united states do? would we regress as a society and ingore the people in need of help?

society is better off in the long run with a plan like social security in place

People don't want that responsibility. In the end, they want someone to hold their hands.

Also, unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the ability or desire of people to, on their own, be responsible and prepare for their retirement. Dismantle SS and we'll have a whole bunch of old folks who have no way of taking care of their own needs.

Steve

Obviously we couldn't just yank the rug out from under people who have been paying in for all their lives so your grandmother is irrelevant.

But I think you've got a confused notion of political popularity. Just because people yell and scream that they don't want their benefits cut doesn't mean that they are happy that they handed over responsibility for their retirement savings to the government in the first place.

I'm not against the disability portion of the program and I'm not against the basic concept of welfare/domestic assistance programs for those in need regardless of age.

The core of the Social Security program is offensive to me though. Where do you draw the line. Why should I be trusted to manage any of my money. Would the world be a better place if I had no money of my own, just whatever the government decided I needed. Borg might think so but I'd hope the rest wouldn't.

Is Gene Stallings your dad?

You already know the answer, Billy, which is that government really only does anyone any good by providing the stable structure upon which to build society. In other words, they take your (and everyone else's) money and save it for you, like it or not, so that you can't go risk it in the market for higher gains only to come up empty, with your hand out, 40 years later. One person, no big deal. A large percentage of everyone, all at once? Fucked.

And safety is more imprtant than you making a slightly better average %, unfortunately. It's just too big a deal to risk. You'd probably be fine, and that's a shame, but it doesn't mean the whole system should open up to all those idiots out there who can barely decide whether to use their turn signals or not, much less plan for their own future.

Don't like it? Buy your own island. "Where do we draw the line?" Somewhere. Wish it were black-and-white, all-or-none, but it isn't. So we get to argue over where the line goes. That's life.