Sunday, April 03, 2005

Conrad Burns Cases Cookie Jar

Sometimes people just know they are being lied to. Maybe that's why Denny Rehberg didn't show up to push George Bush's plan to dismantle Social Security through deception. Conrad Burns apparently took it pretty hard at the college on Saturday when he and Social Security Administration spokesperson Delia Lasanta wasted a bunch of taxpayer dollars selling the problem to Flathead area citizens.

He found out that we know they have been playing shell games with our money;

Elmer Bastrom of Whitefish said the government has to eliminate Congress' ability to raid the Social Security trust fund to subsidize spending in other areas.

Burns acknowledged that previous lock-box bills haven't been successful in locking away Social Security money.

"That's because you had the key," Bastrom shouted. "I have a union pension that's good 'til the day I die because no one touches it but me. You've let everybody spend it [Social Security]. I want it fixed so these kids can 'say my retirement is good.'
He also found out that there are people here who flat out do not trust this administration at all:

Eric Funk of Whitefish said he too has questions about trust.

"Why should I trust this administration to act in my own best interest?" he asked.

Small wonder that Burns voice had the high pitched crack of a man telling his wife he really didn't know where those panties came from when he was telling the television crew how honest they [he and Delia Lasanta] were.
|

5 Comments:

Blogger Demosthenes said...

Wait a second...

Baucus was invited, but declined to join Burns and Rehberg for the listening sessions. If one's intention is to seduce someone, one does not invite the other suitor on the date. The fact of the matter is Burns hasn't made up his mind.

12:16 AM  
Blogger granny said...

Yes, I read on Senator Burns' website that EVERYONE was invited to the listening sessions before I posted this, but your logic there is pretty weak.

It was pretty weak but not nearly as weak as the logic you used to excuse the fact he rejected the sense of the Senate ammendment promising not to do anything that would substantially cut benefits or raise the cost.

The words "to love, honor and cherish...through sickness and health..." are not legally binding either. All the same, I wouldn't do the deal with someone who wouldn't say them.

1:03 AM  
Blogger granny said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:10 AM  
Blogger Demosthenes said...

What are we talking about again? Because now that your orginal post has been neutered apparently we're changing the subject to the vote on the budget amendment. No worries, I've addressed that too.

And since posting that I've tought about it a bit. That amendment would almost guarantee a tax increase. Like I said in my article, the amount of benefit cut and debt increase that trips the threshold is undefined, and raising taxes would be the only way to go - even if we did nothing on social security like the Dems would have it.

6:28 AM  
Blogger granny said...

Excuse me, but the original post has not been altered in any way.

Are you are referring to the comment that was deleted, it was a duplicate of the one that is still up there, I just didn't think it went through and didn't want to type a response to your comment twice.

The last part of my comment addressed your post about Burns irresponsible vote in favor of massive benefit cuts and cost overruns.

Disagree with me all you want, but keep your hands off my checkbook I believe in responsibility based on the reality I have, not the reality I would like to have.

7:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home