Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 43)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, released the following statement regarding the rejection of Senator Reid’s debt limit plan by the U.S. House.
“The House has passed two bills to cut current spending, control future spending and finally bring the same fiscal accountability to the federal government that Montana families and 49 states already have. Now, finally, the Senate has proposed a plan and put it down on paper. That’s a huge step, and while it’s certainly not the plan I would prefer, at least now we can sit down and try to find common ground to bring this crisis to a responsible end. As it’s currently written, Senator Reid’s plan relies on more budget gimmicks instead of real spending reductions. It delays necessary spending control until after the election. And it brings absolutely no accountability to the federal government. It may be good politics for the President’s re-election, but it’s not good policy for the hardworking American taxpayer. But it’s a start, and I’m eager to role up my sleeves and find a solution that can pass.”
Over and over I have said that if we want to save some money then we need to eliminate the Dept of Education. Here is another reason to mentioned in this fine article below:
Senator Marco Rubio has just written to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, requesting that he not break the law. At issue is the administration’s plan to offer states waivers from the No Child Left Behind act if they agree to adopt national standards or pursue other educational goals of the administration. Rubio states that these conditional waivers violate the U.S. Constitution, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act. He’s right.
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system… .[Section 3403(b)]
‘Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction. [Section 1905]
The Secretary’s conditional waivers from NCLB mandates, in return for dancing as he desires on national standards, seem to violate all of the above. I wonder if any education reporter will have the temerity to ask Arne Duncan on what grounds he believes he is entitled to ignore these laws? Senator Rubio’s letter certainly gives them a golden opportunity to do so.
Republican Bob Turner shocked the Democrats in New York and won the 9th district of the House of Representatives seat and it will be the first time since 1922 that a Republican has held that seat.
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog commented, “It is also a district that will disappear in a year.” (Arkansas Times Blog, Sept 14, 2011). Here Max misses the point. Remember Scott Brown’s shocking upset and the result in the 2010 elections that followed. The same probably is true here.
Another point that I differ with Brantley on is the fact that this seat will go back to the Democrats so soon. Do you think the Democrats will defeat Turner and Brown in 2012 when the unpopular Democratic president is on the ticket too?
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) – which sent more than 87,000 phone calls into targeted households throughout New York’s 9th Congressional District over the last four days, urging a vote for Republican Bob Turner in today’s special election – congratulates Turner for his victory over Democrat David Weprin.
“The victory in New York demonstrates that Americans of all political affiliations increasingly recognize that the big government policies advanced by this Administration and Democrats in Congress are damaging the economy and weakening our country,” said IWV CEO Heather R. Higgins. “Rep. Turner will join the ranks of those committed to ending government’s assault on private business, repealing ObamaCare, and cutting the wasteful spending that is burying our country in debt. He’ll represent New York well, and we’re pleased to have been able to play a part in his victory.”
In this overwhelmingly Democratic district – registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by almost 3-to-1 – Independent Women’s Voice ran a sophisticated phone operation to identify Democrats and Independents who were open to persuasion, then followed up with targeted messages to them, including calls touting former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch’s endorsement of Turner, and a call from Democratic Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who crossed party lines to endorse Turner last week.
“When we looked at the registration figures,” said Higgins, “it became clear that turning out all the Republicans in the district wouldn’t be enough. So we worked to identify Democrats and Independents who were open to persuasion, then communicated to them about the importance of using their vote to send a message.
“Former Mayor Koch’s endorsement played a big role, and so did Assemblyman Hikind’s,” Higgins continued. “All we did was take their messages – and, in the case of Assemblyman Hikind, the messenger himself – and send them directly into the households of targeted voters, via phone calls.
“IWV is proud to have played a role in educating New York voters about the stakes in this race,” Higgins concluded. “We firmly believe that Independents and moderate and conservative Democrats are open to messages about the destructive impact of government over-reach, and Bob Turner’s success in this overwhelming Democratic district confirms that.”
I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System.
Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it.
Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they’re just getting back money that they put into their “account.” Or they think it’s like an insurance policy — you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There’s no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.
Mitt Romney and other Republicans who scoff at Rick Perry shamelessly pander to older voters. They should tell people the truth.
Still, I’m not convinced Perry has more than a sound bite. In his USA Today op-ed this week, the most he says is, “We must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable.” He doesn’t say what kind of reforms.
Charles Ponzi promised to make money for investors by taking advantage of price differences in coupons for postage stamps. Trouble is, he paid some early “investors” with money wheedled from later “investors.”
What sustains a Ponzi scheme is deception. If people really knew how it worked, they wouldn’t sign on.
Social Security and Medicare are different. You could say no to Ponzi. I wouldn’t advise saying no to the government. Not if you want to stay out of prison.
Social Security is nothing more than a promise from politicians. The next gang can break the promise.
Twice the government has argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security is not insurance. In 1960, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur Sherwood Flemming submitted a brief to the courts stating: “The contribution exacted under the Social Security plan is a true tax. It is not comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.”
In a ruling that denied a man’s property claim to Social Security benefits, the Supreme Court said, “It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
So anyone who believes Social Security is an investment plan really has only himself to blame.
If you want evidence, listen to how politicians talk about your Social Security “contributions.” They are taxes and nothing more. No one pretends they are premiums. In fact, President Obama and the Republicans want to stimulate the economy by extending a cut in the payroll tax for workers and cutting the employer’s share of the tax — but without reducing Social Security benefits.
Now, I like tax cuts more than the next person, but as Freeman editor Sheldon Richman points out, this one has a complication the politicians don’t seem to care about:
“President Obama’s jobs program calls for cuts in both sides of the payroll tax. That tax finances Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are already taking in less money than they need to pay retirees. So they will have to cash in more of the Treasury IOUs left behind when previous surpluses were used to finance general expenditures. But the Treasury is also already running a deficit, a trillion dollars-plus. So it will have to borrow more in the capital markets in order to pay back the Social Security and Medicare funds. Unless Obama makes up the lost revenue by changing the tax code. But then money will be withdrawn from the economy in the form of higher taxes so it can be put back into the economy through the payroll-tax cut. Somehow that’s supposed to stimulate the economy.”
Like all jobs programs, Obama’s latest plan is a scam. The economy would create ample opportunities to earn income — and make it easier for people to look after themselves in retirement — if the government would just slash spending, taxes, regulation and privilege.
Ponzi scheme or not, we wouldn’t need Social Security.
John Stossel
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy.
_________________________-
I want to make two points today. 1. There is no way for an atheist to achieve last meaning. 2. The atheist can not come up with any intellectual basis for the “Golden Rule.” In a world of time and chance the survival of the fittest is the best he can come with. (Woody Allen’s movie makes that point very well with his reference to “might makes right.”)
Atheists understand that life is wonderful because we only have one. It’s not about having a purpose in life as much as it’s about living life to the fullest extent while trying to make the world a happy place for ALL. The latter part of that statement is why Atheists advertise and proselytize – because religion often gives a person a sense of superiority over others from different faiths and the non-religious, and that often leads to prejudice, division, and violence.
I am an Atheist, yet I believe whole-heartedly in the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you. It’s the core belief in over 20 of the largest world religions, believe it or not. .. The fact is this, if you truly follow that rule then you won’t kill or steal or lie or covet thy neighbors anything because you would never want someone doing that to you. It’s common sense, it’s simple human morality, nothing implanted by gods.
_____________________
Christians have a basis for their morality because the infinite personal God of the Bible has spoken in the Bible to them. The Bible was written in a space time setting and many of the passages of the Bible have been verified as historically accurate.
On the other hand, many of the passages of the Book of Mormon has been disproved (For instance, use of horses and chariots in the USA 2000 years ago). Jesus said that he was the only way to God (John 14:6) and that he was the truth and the light. Those who do not have revealed truth are left in the dark when it comes to morals. Let me give you a perfect example concerning the “Golden Rule.”
Earlier I took a look at the Woody Allen film “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In that film Judah has his troublesome mistress killed because she was about to destroy him by revealing his past illegal activities. Judah is told by his agnostic to not be troubled by guilt and that he is home free. She noted that Hitler proved that might makes right. (Martin Landau played the part of Judah and he revealed that several men had confided to him that they wished they had done the same deed as Judah because they would have been happier.)
The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.
Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue AND THEY HAVE NO BASIS FOR DEFENDING THE GOLDEN RULE. ABOVE WE READ mudfishin say “It’s common sense, it’s simple human morality…” BUT I KNEW Gloria Leitner WOULD BE CHALLENGED BY A FELLOW HUMANIST WHO THOUGHT THROUGH THEIR WORLDVIEW WITH A LOGICAL MIND, AND SURE ENOUGH IT HAPPENED.
Solomon showed us in the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes what the world “under the sun” without God in the picture looks like and it forces one to embrace nihilism.(See previous post on this about Solomon’s search.) However, the atheist has to live in the world that God made with the conscience that God gave him. This creates a tension. The agnostic Carl Sagan felt the tension too.
What does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”
Dr Sagan deep down knew that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Francis Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore. WOODY ALLEN REALIZES THAT IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST THEN WE ARE NOT PRECIOUS AND ALL IS MEANINGLESS!!!
I would love to hear from any atheist that would present a case for lasting meaning in life apart from God. It seems to me that the British humanist H. J. Blackham was right in his accessment of the predictament that atheists face:
On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does notis a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance andends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, oneafter another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)
Woody Allen’s film does a great job of showing the need for the “enforcement factor.” One reviewer made it sound like the movie was unrealistic and Judah could have smoothtalked his way out of this. However, Woody Allen anticipated this objection and that is why he threw in the illegal financial dealings of Judah that his former girlfriend knew about. Now instead of just losing his marriage he may have to go to jail.
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 42)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has taken a stand for fiscal discipline and a strong national defense, voting against the latest bill to increase the nation’s debt ceiling.
“I appreciate House Speaker John Boehner’s rejection of liberal demands for a blank check debt limit increase and liberal calls for tax increases, but the solution approved by Congress and sent to President Obama dramatically cuts our national defense,” said Hartzler. “This agreement strips $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget and has the Obama Administration bragging that this is, ‘the first defense cut since the 1990’s.’ The package also leaves the door open to the possibility of $500 billion in defense cuts down the road. This is unacceptable! The simple truth is that the United States Constitution requires the federal government to do only a handful of things – the most important of which is to provide for our national defense.”
“I also have concerns about a watered-down Balanced Budget Amendment provision,” continued Hartzler. “This agreement forces a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment, but does not require it to pass and be sent to the states for ratification. I worked hard to include language requiring not only a vote on a BBA, but for the House and Senate to pass the Amendment and send it to the states. Only a Balanced Budget Amendment can force Washington to live within its means as American families must do. It is only through spending discipline that America can secure its future economic freedom.”
“Despite my opposition to this legislation, I am pleased that Republicans are changing the debate in Washington,” concluded Hartzler. “We will continue to work to control spending, solve America’s huge debt problem, and balance our budget.”
Vicky Hartzler was elected to Congress on November 2, 2010. She serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committe
In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t create new employment.
Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.
___________________________
When I think of all our hard earned money that has been wasted on stimulus programs it makes me sad. It has never worked and will not in the future too. Take a look at a few thoughts from Cato Institute:
On Thursday night, the president laid out his plan for job creation, a $447 billion stimulus proposal, most of which we have seen before. After all, if Congress passes this new round of government spending, it would be the seventh such stimulus program since the recession began. George W. Bush pushed through two of them, totaling some $200 billion, and Obama already has enacted four more, with a total price tag of roughly $1.3 trillion.
The result: Three years and $1.5 trillion of spending later, we are back to the same gallimaufry of failed ideas. Among the worst:
1. Temporary Tax Cuts. The president wants to extend and expand the temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that Congress enacted last December. The president also called for a grab-bag of tax credits for businesses that buy new equipment, hire veterans or even give workers a raise. There is obviously nothing wrong with letting workers keep a bit more of their money. And some of the tax breaks might encourage businesses to speed up otherwise planned hiring or purchases, providing a short-term economic boost. But neither people nor businesses tend to make the sort of long-term plans needed to boost production, generate growth and create jobs on the basis of temporary tax changes. This is especially true when businesses can look down the road and see tax hikes in their future.
If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.
2. Further Extending Unemployment Benefits. The president wants to spend $49 billion to provide another extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Of course everyone can sympathize with the plight of the long-term unemployed. But, the overwhelming body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits may actually increase unemployment and keep people out of work for longer. In fact, many economists believe that current extensions of unemployment benefits have already extended the average length of unemployment by three weeks or more.
Nick is Gene and Shannon’s son and he appears often on Gene Simmons Family Jewels show.
Gene Simmons has been guilty of having affairs while on tour for years. On July 19th episode of Gene Simmons Family Jewels he told his tour manager that he was not going to the after party. Then he said it was like “being in a bakery but not being able to eat any bread.”
Commitment is the key word. When we start off a relationship it is exciting but commitment is what is important to make it a lasting and satisfying relationship. In this short film below Jack is excited while declaring his love, but the real test is always in the depth of one’s commitment.
The thought jumped into my mind while watching this 61 yr old man say this. I wonder if he will ever settle down? The article below makes it clear that even if you have been married for 30 yrs, you still have to watch out for the possibility of a moral failing.
“How could you?” Susan asked, staring at her husband, John, in unbelief. He and a co-worker had been “just friends” until a few months ago. Today the truth came out.
. . . . . . . .
Peter closed the blinds in his living room, turned off the lights, stood in the darkness, and started weeping. He’s never felt so alone in his life. It was bad enough the last time he discovered his wife, Jessica, was having an affair. This time, Jessica simply left a terse note saying she had had enough and was moving in with her new boyfriend.
Do these scenarios sound familiar? If you’ve dealt with infidelity in your own marriage, you know firsthand how devastating it can be. Infidelity is not a simple problem and it cannot be fixed with a simple cure, though that is what we most often desire. This series of articles is designed to provide insight, encouragement and practical advice to anyone whose marriage has been undermined by an act of infidelity.
Maybe it’s happened to you. You’re fed up with your spouse, so you start chatting with that attractive person of the opposite sex in the next cubicle. You’ve known him for years, and it’s so easy to talk. He just listens. Pretty soon you’re sharing intimate problems, and now the co-worker is telling you how hard you have it. Maybe you should just leave your spouse … and maybe the two of you should go out to lunch to talk more about it all.
With this person, you’re finding what you need and want: a sympathetic ear, someone who understands you and all you’re going through, maybe even the first meaningful physical touch you’ve had for months.
Obviously, while not all office relationships lead to affairs, and not all affairs start at work, this scene demonstrates in an overly simplified and time-compressed way how some people start down the path of cheating on their spouse.
No Immunization for Affairs
Whether you’ve been married for 30 days or 30 years, you’re never really immune to an extramarital affair. So, how many married people are cheating on their spouses?
Well, definitive numbers are hard to come by, but most polls and estimates typically report that more than one-third of men and about one-quarter of women admit to having had at least one extramarital sexual act. If you factor in cases of “emotional infidelity” — where a spouse engages in an intimate (yet not sexual) friendship with a member of the opposite sex — the numbers are much higher, probably greater than 50 percent.
Still, nearly 80 percent of Americans say adultery is always wrong and only physical abuse does more harm to a marriage. Indeed, the discovery of an affair more often than not leads to divorce.1
Influence of the Internet
If anything, the growing influence and availability of the Internet has only made things worse, with as many as one in 10 Internet users reporting that they are addicted to cybersex or other online temptations.
After all, online sexual encounters offer the thrill of a make-believe romance along with the added benefit of anonymity. And because many online affairs don’t involve actual physical contact, participants can convince themselves that cybersex isn’t really adulterous, that they aren’t really cheating on their spouse.
The truth is, however, that even a “virtual” affair can wreak havoc on a marriage or a serious dating relationship.
Why Affairs Happen
Affairs don’t only happen for sex. Some reasons people get trapped in an affair:
To give a conscious or subconscious “wake-up call” to the spouse. This might happen if your spouse has a different kind of “lover” outside of your marriage, such as a consuming career or hobby.
To inflate a bruised ego. You might want to get back at your spouse for something he or she did that hurt you rather than offering forgiveness and dealing with the root issue.
A friendship gets out of control. Whether or not you think it’s healthy to have friendships with members of the opposite sex, take extra care in those relationships.
Your spouse doesn’t live up to your expectations anymore. Remember that you know your spouse’s good and bad qualities, while you may only see someone else’s good side because you don’t know him or her well enough to see warts yet. That’s known as “romanticizing” a relationship.
Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.
Matt Yglesias says anyone who thinks social security is a Ponzi scheme is nuts. So let’s take a look at some of these nuts. First up is Nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson who wrote:
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that Works
The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in — exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!
How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired.
…A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.
Samuelson wrote that in 1967 riffing off his classic paper of 1958. By “as far as the eye cannot see” he apparently meant not very far because it soon became clear that the system could not count on waves of youths or rapid productivity growth to generate the actuarially unsound returns that made the program so popular in the early years.
Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson rarely agreed on much but Friedman also called social security a Ponzi scheme. In fact, he called it The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth but perhaps Yglesias puts Friedman in the nut category so let’s go for a third Nobel prize winner who recognizes the Ponzi like nature of social security, none other than…..Paul Krugman (writing in 1996):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in). (ital added, AT)
Of these, I agree the most with Krugman. Social Security is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme but it only generated massive returns in the past because of its Ponzi-like aspects. The Ponzi-like aspects are now over and social security is turning into what is essentially a forced savings/welfare program with, as Krugman recognizes, crummyreturns for average workers. Social security is thus a Ponzi scheme which has not gone bust but it has gone flat.
___________________________________
So here you have it. Both liberals and conservatives can take a calm look at the issue of social security and recognize how Ponzi like it is.
TALLAHASSEE – According to USA Today, former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden is expected to tell ABC’s “Good Morning America” Tuesday morning that he had prostate cancerwhile he was coaching in 2007, and that he kept his medical condition a secret out of fear of dirty recruiting tactics.In its editions that hit newsstands and Gannett Company newspapers Tuesday morning, Bowden told the USA Today that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer early in 2007, and that a former player treated him that spring. Since undergoing the low-dose radioactive procedure, he has been cancer-free.
“I did not understand the significance of prostate cancer back then,” Bowden said in an interview with USA Today. “What I knew was when something like that happens to a coach and your opponents find out about it, the first thing they say is ‘Don’t go to Florida State. Coach Bowden is about to die.’
“If I knew then what I know now, I would have considered it my moral duty to bring it out in the open.”
Bowden, 81, will sit down with “Good Morning America” around 8:45 a.m. Tuesday morning. Part of his appearance is to help promote On The Line, a national prostate cancer education initiative of which he has become a spokesman.
On Monday night, news of his “GMA” appearance was first reported by a Tallahassee television news anchor.
According to WTXL’s Anne Imanuel’s @AnneImanuel Twitter account, Bowden was “scheduled to make an ‘emotional’ announcement on @GMA (Tuesday) morning.” A second tweet read: “Just spoke to an @GMA producer. The Bobby Bowden ‘emotional announcement’ won’t be released until (Tuesday) AM but it concerns his health.”
In an email to the Sentinel shortly after midnight Tuesday morning, Bowden’s publicist, Kimberly Shiff, said the information on Bowden was supposed to be embargoed until Tuesday morning.
While the news caused an uproar on Twitter, FSU fans chimed in with their concerns that something was wrong with Bowden. Some members of the FSU media tried to calm their fears, saying that the announcement had nothing to do with Bowden’s current health, but that it was important.
Bowden told USA Today that urologist Joe Camps, a captain from his first FSU team in 1976, performed the procedure.
“Bobby is not real big on sharing things that are wrong with him; he doesn’t want to admit he isn’t perfect,” his wife, Ann, told USA Today. She lost her father and a sister to cancer, the USA Today said.
“Bobby has always been so healthy and active,” she continued. “This was not expected.”
When he learned of his diagnosis in Jan. 2007, Bowden’s first thoughts settled on his FSU family.
“My mind was on two things,” Bowden told USA Today. “The press will have you on the front page about to die, and opponents will say ‘Bobby is already 77 years old and he has cancer.’”
In order to pull off the procedure in secret, Camps told USA Today the group made up a fictitious name for Bowden and snuck him into a secure part of the hospital around midnight the night the procedure was performed.
The retired coach has been busy lately.
According to ArkansasSports360.com, Bowden was in Little Rock, Ark. on Monday to speak to the Little Rock Touchdown Club. While there, it was announced that he had just been named to the coaches advisory committee for the Frank Broyles Award, the website reported. Broyles apparently invited him out there for the engagement.
The award goes to the nation’s top assistant coach every year. Bowden’s former defensive coordinator, Mickey Andrews, won the first Broyles Award.
Bowden has found himself in the news recently for other reasons.
In addition to an autograph session at a landmark Tallahassee store last Friday ahead of the Seminoles’ second game of the season against Charleston Southern, he was in Gainesville the previous Saturday to announce the creation of a new college football all-star game.
Bowden was attending Florida’s season-opener against Florida Atlantic to hold a news conference about a game he and fellow coaching icon Howard Schnellenberger were heading. Schnellenberger is in his final season at FAU, but he originally made a name for himself as Miami‘s head coach in the 1980s, when his Hurricanes and Bowden’s Seminoles had their share of epic rivalry games.
There was an uproar about Bowden’s appearance there, too, as some FSU fans questioned why he was in Gainesville for a rival’s opening game, instead of at FSU at the field that bears his name. He has said since stepping away from the sport in Jan. 2010 that he wishes to build a buffer between he and FSU, and that he doesn’t want to get in the way of current coach Jimbo Fisher.
Bowden spent 34 seasons coaching the Seminoles before an emotional, rocky and rather dramatic exit from football following the 2009 season. Since being replaced by Fisher, Bowden has spent his time traveling the world giving speeches and promoting a book.
In 1993 and ’99, Bowden led the Seminoles to their only national titles.
On Saturday, the No. 5 Seminoles, under Fisher’s guidance, are hosting No. 1 Oklahoma in what is being billed as one of the biggest games to ever occur at Doak Campbell Stadium. It is the first time the nation’s current No. 1 team has visited the stadium since Florida did in 1996.
The last team not from Florida to bring a top-5 ranking to Tallahassee was Dan Marino‘s No. 4 Pittsburgh team in 1980. Marino later went on to have a 16-year Hall of Fame career for the Miami Dolphins.
Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden By Coley Harvey, Orlando Sentinel7:13 a.m. EDT, September 13, 2011 TALLAHASSEE – According to USA Today, former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden is expected to tell ABC’s “Good Morning America” Tuesday morning that he had prostate cancerwhile he was coaching in 2007, and that he kept his medical […]
I went to the Little Rock Touchdown Club and heard Bobby Bowden of Florida State speak. It was outstanding. Here is an article below on his visit from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: LITTLE ROCK — Former Florida State Coach Bobby Bowden is familiar with pressure brought on by high expectations. Two years ago, after the Seminoles […]
The Broyles Award Trophy, made out of solid bronze, depicts Broyles (kneeling) and longtime University of Arkansas assistant coach Wilson Matthews (standing), watching over a Razorback football game or practice. Matthews was the coach of Little Rock Central High School before joining Broyles on the Razorback’s staff. ______________ Today at the Little Rock […]
