ZOT
Posted on 12/17/2004 10:26:16 AM PST by scrossman
The first edition of George W. Bush's administration was all about a destructive and disastrous foreign policy for which the American people will be paying for a long time. Now comes the second edition, the focus now is on domestic policy, and the plan is to apply the tried and true methods of fear mongering and deception used to sell the Iraq war in order to stampede the American people into going along with a neoconservative domestic agenda against their own best interests.
The war this time will be waged on American soil, and the regime to be crushed is what little is left of the liberal legacy, especially social security and the progressive tax, in the United States.
In a front-page story last Friday, The Washington Post quotes White House officials as saying that the administration intends to push aggressively for the partial privatization of social security, the expansion of tax cuts for the rich, and limits on the amount of money that injured individuals can recover through lawsuits.
According to the Post story, in order to "build public support and circumvent critics in Congress and the media, the president will travel the country and warn of the disastrous consequences of inaction, as he did to sell his Iraq and terrorism policy during the first term."
The campaign to turn back the clock on social policy to the early twentieth century before the Progressive Era and the New Deal leveled the playing field somewhat will feature the same kind of cadre of true believers that brought us Iraq. In the words of the Post, the administration will create "a small, loyal and trustworthy team to press for broad changes largely dictated by the White House."
Just as right-wing think tanks and media were effective cheerleaders for the war in Iraq, the Post reports that in order to influence public opinion the president "is also enlisting well-funded conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation to help build the case for change or 'reform,' the words of the White House through ads and commentary on television and targeted publications."
The campaign of lies and distortions to create the impression that social security is in imminent danger of collapse started early and at the very top with the president's radio address this Saturday, in which Bush raised the specter of the bankruptcy of social security.
What is bankrupt is the administration's credibility; social security has been a fantastically successful program that has assured a dignified old age for tens of millions of Americans who otherwise might have ended up destitute. And a plethora of experts agrees that the problems that social security will face in the next few decades because of the aging of the population can be solved easily, for instance by collecting more social security taxes from higher income groups. But, significantly, President Bush has already rejected that solution. That's because Bush's objective is not saving social security, a program the very creation of which the Republicans fought and that is abhorred by "free market" ideologues because its success and popularity belies their central anti-government dogma.
Under various guises, such as creating a simpler tax code, promoting an "ownership society," and "reforming" social security, Bush's real objective is a system in which those whose money works for them get all the benefits and those who work for their money or who cannot work at all have no safety net to fall back on. By eliminating or drastically reducing taxes on unearned income, including inheritances, capital gains, and income from savings minor sources of income for most people but very important ones for the very wealthy Bush accomplishes both objectives. These policies shift even more resources to the rich while decimating the funding base required for the state to provide a safety net for the aged and other vulnerable Americans.
As with Iraq, Bush's push to remake domestic policy is a bad idea sold by ideological zealots through dishonest means that will yield disaster. This time, there can be no doubt from the outset that the central argument used by Bush to create fear in order to promote his policies is bogus. Even though the administration's categorical charges about weapons of mass destruction were outrageous given the scarce and contradictory evidence, there might have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no social security crisis, only a political project to destroy it for ideological reasons.
Discussing the 2004 presidential campaign, the writer Joan Didion has called today's American politics "weird." Nothing could be more bizarre than White House officials boasting about replicating the Iraq debacle, this time on the domestic front. As the number of Americans dead in Iraq climbs toward 1,300, soldiers grill the Secretary of Defense over inadequate equipment, and the awful consequences of the decision to invade the country become ever more evident, the White House promises another holy war waged by the same means, this time to slay not Saddam but the ghost of the welfare state.
Yet we cannot afford to underestimate the capacity of the Bush and his right-wing allies to confuse and convince the American public. As Bush and company were exploiting the tragedy of 9-11 to sell the Iraq war to the American people, most Democratic leaders went along with the charade, with the results we see today. This time, if the Democratic Party is to remain viable, it must remain united and mount a stiff opposition to Bush's nefarious new plans for the homeland.
A newsmag for communist pasta lovers?
Then again, they serve a lot of stuff there that isn't available at other branches of the chain restaurant.
I don't see why they had to go and close one of the last two remaining Nathan's in my borough, then build yet another pizzeria.
Bah!
Good Moderator: Might this be a record?
I think that might belong to Esquire or Ash. Although at the time the threads weren't zotted, but the poster was banned multiple times in one day.
Joan Didion is quite a hateful old communist cow.
No fooling?
close one of the last two remaining Nathan's in my borough, then build yet another pizzeria.
With convenience comes uniformity.
Nathan's is really the only fast food place-aside from KFC-that I actually patronize with any sort of frequency.
They do serve great food, at least, in comparison with similar chain restaurants.
Here in CA it used to be family-owned Mexican. Few of those anymore. But there is a very good chain, La Salsa. Taco Bell is for kids, just so you know.
KFC is one of the basic food groups. Isn't it?
ZOT
It essentially consists of less than 20 blocks, but somehow, has managed to support fifteen different pizzerias.
And that's not even including the Domino's take-out place that's a few blocks away from my house.
I actually do have some snaps I took on my digital camera-of the Christmas/New Year's decorations-I just haven't figured out how to post them to a new thread yet.
15 pizzerias in 20 blocks. Sounds like No. Beach, SF!
Holy crap! That's right out of pet semetary! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.