Losman-McGahee-Evans

Indeed I am. I am what is called a real Republican as well as a real Christian. In other words I pursue smaller government, less debt accumulation and honesty with the American people. None of those exist with the Bush-led Republican Party and that why people like yourself thrive in it. There is no need for you to think on your own since you can just talking points given to you. There is no need for you to demand honesty from your leaders since the only thing important to you is supporting the agenda since they tell you its honest. You have no reason to question it because you don't have the ability to.

Actually no.

Are you being serious?

The system as it stands faces better actuarial assumptions than at several points over the last 60 years. As as for 401k's, many of us feel they haven't turned out to be all that great. The above is nonsensical. Of course the system as it stands has significant obligations. Unfortunately, those obligations aren't just going to go away (unless you want to tell a whole generation of workers that they're SOL for getting benefits under the old OR new plans). The point is that transistion costs are ABOVE AND BEYOND the existing costs. The only way that "future off-balance sheet obligations" will be lowered is if, as noted above, you write off people who would be getting benefits under the existing system, and not have enough time to "earn" benefits under the new. And, of course, the implication behind the idea that we can just write off the money owed to the system (the "hidden debt" you're talking about) is that people have been paying extra money into the system for the last 20 years, and now we're just going to say we're not going to give their money back. Perhaps you could be specific about the "incorrect" aspect of the analysis? Of course. Just because the history of tax cuts has been that they've ALWAYS been followed by real revenue reductions doesn't mean that it will continue to be that way. Also as a REAL Reagan Republican I'm know that Reagan implemented the largest tax increases in American history (He raised taxes 5 times) so obviously he doesn't agree with your point either even though it is indeed priceless. I'd like to see an example of when this was not the case... You need to check your facts first and spin rhetoric second. Current overall deficits are on the order of 4% GDP yearly -- in the ballpark of where they were during the 80's. At the time, as I recall, there seemed to be quite a bit of concern from us "fiscal conservatives". Ah, for the good ol' days.. Per the 2005 U.S. Budget, Historical Table 1.2 the expected deficit for 2004 will turn out to be 4.5% of GDP. If you ignore the extra money being generated by Social Security, it's 5.9% -- just about the worst since World War II. How someone can say that's no big deal, yet claim the mantle of a fiscal conservative and insult me as if I don't know anything about anything, is beyond me. Unless, of course, it's more important to sell a "Socialist Insecurity" phaseout... Additionally annual BALANCED budgets are a sign of good steady state fiscal control. Annual budget deficits are a sign of fiscal irresponsibility. Annual budget deficits add up to mounting federal debt, and mounting obligations to cover the costs of maintaining that debt. Example -- If your wife took $25 out of your kids' college fund every month to pay the water bill, would you compliment him on his "good steady state fiscal control" for maintaining a deficit of "only" 2.5%? Like I said I am a REAL Republican who puts country before party and God before country therefore I cannot support a party being led around through the use of lies. We are the better party and we have no reason to be dishonest in order to gain public support for our programs. To simplify it for you and others that get lost in your verbose responses - 1. The system is strong and in good condition to last as is for quite a while. The SS Administration projects using extremely conservative assumptions (such as low population and GDP growth) that the SS trust fund will be able to pay its obligations for the next 40 years (including drawing down the trust fund). The CBO projects it will be okay for the next 50 years. 2. It's more likely the system could last forever, with no fix at all. If U.S. GDP growth averages about 3% over the next 50 years then the system is good indefinitely. If you are so blindly bullish on the economy why do you think SS will be a problem. Why is it in "crisis"? 3. The system is unquestionably better than privatization, as tested by real life. Every real life example of privatization has been a disaster. Argentina, Chile, England and Sweden, all saw extraordinary costs and consequences from their experiment. Bottom line: Our current system is cheaper, less risky, and undoubtedly caters far better to the greater good. As a REAL Republican my greatest concern is debt accumulation and if we are going to accumulate more debt it must be for something that is actually IN CRISIS not something we as a party are lying to the American people about in order to convince them it is in crisis. Unless you're in the financial industry and hungry for new fees at the expense of the short and long term financial health of this country. As I said before, COUNTRY before PARTY. Also, medicare and SS are both funded out of payroll taxes, but not the same tax. They are not funded from the same pot. SS is currently bringing in more than is going out in benefits and is, at current, somewhat pessimistic estimates, going to be solvent for at least the next 3 decades. My point is that medicare is in trouble now. THAT IS THE CRISIS. And the transition costs ARE debt, because they are not purely benefit payment debts.

Yes, and you are not uneccesarily insulting.

Really? The two places in Iraq that are currently under seige are Mosul (NORTH of the sunni triangle) and Anbar province (WEST of the Sunni triangle). My son died during the assault on Fallujah and he said the insurgency is now everywhere and is close to being out of control. I'll take his word for it not yours. As far as left-sided or half-truth talking points simply because my beliefs are based in reality not Bush talking points doesn't mean I'm incorrect. It means I'm a Reagan-Republican not some lemming. I'm in the same group as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Staunch Republican) as well as Newt Gingrich and ex-Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman. All of us are against destroying SS because right now we need to focus on looming budget and Medicare crises, so borrowing trillions to destroy what is essentially the most financially stable program in the entire federal government seems stupid and dangerous. Like I said, I'm a REAL Republican and I don't believe the way to accomplish our golas as a party is to lie in order to do it. Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. You all talk of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt. As far as checking my facts you should check yours. Mine are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan. Under Plan 2, payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts while future benefits would be cut. In the short run, this would worsen the budget deficit. In the long run, if all went well, cutting benefit payments would reduce the deficit. Of course all wouldn't go well but that's a debate for another time. But let's just suppose that everything went according to plan. Even in that unlikely case, privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis? While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis - not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk. We already have a large budget deficit, the result of President Bush's insistence on cutting taxes while waging a war. And it will get worse: a rise in spending on entitlements - mainly because of Medicare, but with a smaller contribution from Medicaid and, in a minor supporting role, Social Security - looks set to sharply increase the deficit after 2010. Like I said as Republicans we should not be lying in order to accomplish things because they are going to beat us over the head with it once this fails. We are the party of morality?

The Sunni triangle is a very small part of that country. The insurgency is no longer within the sunni triangle. It is everywhere. Whatever lesson we teach the Sunnis will have blowback that will make whatever gains temporary. Want proof? Ask the Russians how the iron fist went with the Chechens.

I didn't know it was that bad! I was sort of concerned but then I read an article that said Leonard Davis made the transition in the same year and is now really impressing. He also was looked at as a bust and they even played him at G. Now people say he's the real deal. I think Mike's a better lineman than Davis so he should be able to make the move.

Detroit can't sign both or tag both. I'd love to have Dominic at C and if we lose Jennings we could either swing Teague to LT or release him and switch MW to LT with McDougal coming on board.

This figure is from the SSA which is using a very, very conservative model of growth. You actually bring up the program that is actually in crisis -- medicare. SS is not in crisis, period. If my party wants to "sell" this to the American people as reform then that is alie and you are spreading it. As a real Republican I can't do that. I'm obligated to tell the truth and not just as I see it, but the actual truth. What they are trying to do is destroy SS, not reform it. This is exactly what I'm taslking about. This is the dishonesty that I simply cannot wait to rid my party of. It's not going to cost 2 trillion to destroy SS that's just the initial estimate. As far as reducing the deficit are you talking federal or just the budget? Or are you talking a reduction of a projection? It doesn't matter since this dishonest President does this by only showing a five year budget projection. By showing deficit numbers for only a five-year period, the budget conceals the marked worsening of the deficit expected under his policies in the second half of the coming decade. The bulk of the cost of making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent would occur after 2010, when most of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire. He attempts to wrap the budget in an aura of fiscal responsibility by claiming it will cut the deficit in half in five years. This claim is not credible. The budget uses a series of stratagems to mask the magnitude of the deficits the nation faces (and the degree to which the budget would make the deficits worse) and to make it appear on paper as though the deficit will be cut in half. The budget omits approximately $160 billion in costs in 2009 — the fifth year — that the Administration itself favors and is expected to propose in future budgets. By 2009, the budget proposes to cut overall funding for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security $45.4 billion — or 10.4 percent — below today’s level, adjusted for inflation. The Administration is proposing five-year binding caps on discretionary spending to lock in cuts of this magnitude. A number of these cuts would cause significant hardship. For example, the low funding level proposed in 2005 for the housing voucher program, the nation’s principal low-income housing assistance program, could cause the number of low-income families and elderly and disabled households receiving such assistance to be cut by 250,000. The funding levels proposed for child care programs would cause the number of children from low- and moderate-income working families who receive child care assistance to be reduced by approximately 365,000 by 2009. Plus they aren't even including the 50billion or so in operational costs for Iraq in this budget. Yet the amount that these cuts would save pales in comparison to the revenue losses from the tax cuts. The savings over the next five years from all of the domestic discretionary cuts combined would be substantially less than the cost of the tax cuts just for the one percent of households with the highest incomes. This is dishonest and it is indeed by the order of the President to do this. It is his budget and my problem with him is not personal it is professional. He is either incompetent or dishonest or as I believe, both. He is the worst thing to bhappen to this party since Nixon and as a Republican that is saying a lot. That is purely an assumption and one that is falwed since the markets don't really react to proposals. Plus, have you seen the dollar lately? That's the sign that foreign markets look at us as a good investment? I am indeed a Republican but not a Bush Republican. In other words I simply will not follow an idea over a cliff simply because my party came up with it. While reforming SS may be a good idea, destroying it is not especially since our economy is beginning to shake to its very core due to these irresponsible deficits. Some may equate Republican to idot but I'm not one of them. It would be okay to make that assumption but I've been opposing this President's reckless spending and expansion of government from the beginning. Because of that I've been very disappointed that he cannot simply level with the American people on things like this. It's why I'm very afraid that after he is done with all of these short term victories that we will be left with a long-term place as a minortiy party as we will bear the blame for all his failures. Lying is not bad PR, its lying and it does not belong in this party.

When he does they almost are always false. We caught Zarquawi, Kerry screwed an intern, and on and on and on.

Sincerely, thank you. As I said before, the Democratic platform is now closer to my beliefs than the current theocratic version of my Republican Party. My only hope is that once this collection of fools is done there is something for me and other true Republicans to come back to. As I said i'm not your typical Republican so facts are very important to me and ignorance is not bliss so i'm pretty familiar with the current DEM platform and one part in particular. "Pay as you go". That was OUR mantra and now it is theirs. In fact I heard Kerry say it close to 100 times and it was central to all his economic proposals. Here is my problem with the current leadership of this party. I abhor talking points and you qoute them to me. If you are educated on this subject you know that a.) SS is not in crisis b.) the crisis was created by this administration's irresponsible tax cuts and spending c.) my party is lying to the american people in order to get them to support something rather than telling the truth and letting voters make a choice. This 100 trillion dollar number is in its construct, false. This is why I'm counting the days until I have a real Republican to support. The reason SS is in "crisis" is because in their projections they used infinity vs the customary 75 year rule. Using the 75 year and a anemic 1.8% growth rate, SS faces a 3.7 trillion shortfall. Does anyone here expect our growth will average 1.8%? No. That's why SS is solvent for at LEAST 100 years. This applies to both parties but in this case it now specifically hangs around our neck because of the level of dishonesty in this character of this President.

One exit poll being inaccurate I'll give you but not all six. Never. The rest of your argument is opinion being misrepresented as fact. Either way i'll just agree to disagree.

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about and why my party is headed toward being a semi-permanent minority if we do not change the leadership within it. Just read this article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4175164.story It's about Rehnquist criticizing politicians such as Tom DeLay for threatening impeachment of judges who disagree with them. We are piling things like this up at a very rapid rate and when the time comes they are going to destroy this great party. Because the voters will see US for what THEY are : corrupt, un-American and immoral.

There is a big difference in trend and actually doing it. i'm not talking about the future, i'm talking about the present.

The fact that the Bush administration has more convicted felons in it's adminsitration than any other in our nation's history trumps the Clinton's. i'm mostly speaking to the abuse of power such as DeLay attempting to re-write the ethics rules, etc.

I would also consider it a reliable source if you will provide me a link to this claim made by his organization. I do know for a fact via my son that many of these mass graves were mis-identified as the work of Saddam when in fact they were mass graves of Iranian bodies from Iran-Iraq war. Do you know where I can find a lnk to this claim?

I have to disagree there. My party is so far right, so religiously driven that I believe we are on the verge of splitting which would essentially make us a third party. We are also being led by some of the most corrupt people government has ever elected on a path that is trying to lock us down into power. In reality America will rebel against us using our failures and when the Democrats retake government we will be on the outside looking in becuase of our success in gaming the system to keep US in power. While the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the middle it now represents the moderate Republicans like myself it is not being driving by religious ideology and fiscal irresponsibility.

According to IRC over 125,000 were killed during Gulf I and conservative estimates for civilian deaths during Gulf II are put at 100-120,000. Find me anything that says that Saddam murdered over 250,000 of his own people. Anytihng from a reputable source (Drudge need not apply here.).

You would advocate the Roman method? In other words you support entertainingpeoplewith the gruesome death of the unwanted members of socirty? As far as being forced to using an iron fist it is not that we were forced. It's because we have failed in our mission due to incompetence and this is an act of desperation. The Iraqis did work with us but we made things worse. In fact if you add the numbers of Iraqis killed by Bush I and now under Bush II it surpasses any estimate of those that were killed under Saddam.

Maybe you are not really familiar with what these death squads did in El Salvador. Maybe if you did indeed have a base of knowledge or a foundation of experience with them you would see why that those that support them simply cannot be Christians. The death squads were called the "Atlacatl Battalion". This was a rapid-response unit created, under U.S. pressure, for counter-insurgency warfare. In a contemporary account, Americas Watch said that "Created, trained and equipped by the United States, the Atlacatl...is an elite grouping within the Armed Forces" [AW AYOR page 127] The Atlacatl was the showpiece unit of the U.S.-inspired reorganization of the Salvadoran military during the early 1980s. Commanded by the dashing Col. Domingo Monterrosa, Atlacatl was the headline grabbing unit of the army. Atlacatl carried out some of the most notorious massacres of the civil war, including the worst massacre in modern Latin American history at El Mozote. Atlacatl also carried out the November 1989 massacre of six Jesuits at the University of Central America. According to a 1991 Americas Watch report, the Altacatl Battalion "remains perhaps the most appalling violator of human rights in El Salvador." [AW DOT page 20] The Atlacatl Battalion was disbanded under the terms of the 1992 peace treaty. To support this or even consider it makes my once proud party nothing more than a collection of moral leppers. It was our party that passed the War Crimes Act in 1996 to prevent this from happening again.

Then where the jobs? Those tax dollars were not spent locally becuase our economy promotes foreign not domestic investment and with the crushing deficits we continue to increase that will not change. Look no further than the performance of the dollar. Targeted tax cuts work, across the board cuts simply do not and never ever have.

Because of the burden that was passed onto local and state agencies which thenincreased those fees in order to make up for shortfalls in tax revenues. This impacted disporportionately Amercians who are not wealthy and more than balanced out the 200 or so they recieved in tax refund.

Sure, as long as we want to bring about a complete destablization of the entire region by installing a fundamentalist muslim regime on the border with the only two stable countries in the region : Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Not a t all. I'm an actual Republican that puts a premium on being factual on what I believe in and say.