« After Quake, Japan’s World Cup Win is Best Form of Medicine (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan)
Pentagon to Certify End to ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ Tomorrow »
Allen West: Steadfastly Boorish (UPDATED)
Jul 21st, 2011 | 70 responses
After calling Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) “vile, unprofessional, and despicable” and “not a lady;” after refusing to apologize for his crude remarks and after using these very same insults for fundraising purposes (below), Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) now blames his boorish conduct on his military service.
Appearing on Fox Business Network,
West said an apology is “not happening,” and then tried to blame his poor etiquette on the military. West, a veteran who was discharged from the Army for abusing an Iraqi, said “there are certain ways we talk in the military. I guess I haven’t learned the DC-insider talk.” As if basic civility is something only practiced inside the Beltway.
Mr. West, please do not use the military to justify your appalling lack of manners.
Mr. West’s fundraising e-mail:
From: Allen West For Congress Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:32 PM Subject: Vile, Despicable, and Unprofessional
Those three words sum up my feelings about Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
By now, you’ve probably heard the story. But I wanted you to hear it from me.Yesterday, on the floor of the House, I publicly expressed my support for “Cut, Cap, and Balance” — the leading conservative proposal to help us get our spiraling debt and spending under control.
Once I left the floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (DNC Chair) — who it seems does little except act as an attack dog for the “vast left wing conspiracy” — attacked me personally for supporting the legislation.
It’s not a coincidence that she is the Chairwoman of the DNC and that the Democrats are making me target #1 for defeat.
In a discussion of grave importance to this nation’s future, she somehow finds time to try to score political points. And she doesn’t have the guts to do it to my face!Episodes like these show that her agenda isn’t to improve the lives of Floridians or to stand on principle. She’s an attack dog for the liberal, progressive wing of the Democratic Party — plain and simple.
And it’s times like this that I need friends with me.
Please make a donation of $25 or more at my website right now. And join thousands of other patriotic Americans in standing up against the vicious attack from the Democratic National Party.
Steadfast and Loyal,Allen West
Allen B. West LTC(R)
Member of Congress
Steadfastly Boorish would be a better closing
UPDATE:
The ThinkProgress quote on West’s “discharge” needs clarification.
Wikipedia:
While serving in Taji, Iraq, West received information from an intelligence specialist about a reported plot to ambush him and his men.[11] The alleged plot reportedly involved Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, a civilian Iraqi police officer.[11] West, who was not responsible for conducting interrogations in Iraq and had never conducted or witnessed one, had his men detain Hamoodi.[11] In the process of detaining Mr. Hamoodi, soldiers testified that Mr. Hamoodi appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued.[11] Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body.[12] West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi’s head,[11] after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as “meaningless information induced by fear and pain.”[11] At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found.[11] West said “At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It’s possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi.”[11]
West was charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, “I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.”[12] The charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding rather than court-martial, at which West was fined $5,000.[11] LTC West accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004.
70 Responses to “Allen West: Steadfastly Boorish (UPDATED)”
“Don’t join the mindless on the far to extreme Left (and a sad number not as far left) who are insane about entitlements and long overdue entitlement reform. It has long been known (to the well and the competent, at least) that the entitlements are unsustainable and must be reformed as they otherwise will fail eventually.”
Ah, DLS. Please note, first, that there is nothing “insane” about wanting the elderly to be able to stay alive. It is, in fact, among the most human qualities that we have that we mourn the loss of our loved ones, and consciously fear death and pain. That we are angry when we die for lack of easily-attainable things like food or medication. The position is not an insane one.
Now, I will agree that entitlements need reform, although I disagree that the setup of SS in particular was ever meant to be anything but permanent. The setup was such that that was even possible, and worked very well, despite huge, huge inflation, because that’s what it was set up to do. Then someone decided that the SS coffers had too much money, and ransacked them. So yes, now we are in a situation where there’s not enough to keep up the system. If you have a system where you’re putting aside a certain amount of money for the future, and then you raid that account just when the largest amount of money should be going IN, um, yeah, you’re not going to end up with enough to live on when you get old. Please remember that while the number of retirees will explode in the coming decades due to the baby boomers hitting that age, the number of workers also exploded a few decades ago, during times of real good interest rates, and the money they put into SS exploded too. We took that money out prematurely, and now we’re paying the price. This was a deviation from the plan which was set up to be sustainable. It’s not correct to say that the original plan was flawed when we did not follow that plan. It was sustainable until we broke the system. Now we’re in a mess.
There are a great many causes to the absolutely unsustainable rate of healthcare cost increases. That is the root cause here, though, the effect of which makes Medicare unsustainable.
So, what do we do about it? Any good engineer knows that you have to start with mitigation of current problems, but that cannot be the end-game of a corrective action. We do have to start from where we’re at, fix this issue happening NOW. You must also address the root cause, though. You also need to be able to mitigate current problems in such a way that you don’t go out of business. Or, um, kill people.
My contention is not that nothing should be done, that there isn’t a problem that needs fixing. My contention is that the suggestion of just simply cutting benefits will not only just be a mitigation of the true problem, but will also kill lots of people, and still not prevent us from “going out of business” in the long run. There needs to be better work on solving the issue of expanding healthcare costs and SS insolvency. We need to get these root causes under control so that life does not become a commodity only afforded by the wealthy.
You might notice that I have not proposed the solution here, but my point is that it’s not ok to just let people die by cutting their benefits. This comment is already too long.
As Roro is concerned about Social Security inadequacy or potential inadequacy, I’ll just add a link here about something related to what was on another thread and the mention of Europe’s problems now and in the future (especially) being worse than ours. It’s the latest CSIS “Aging Vulnerability Index” report version. Earlier (mid-1990s) it studied the advanced nations, and it has expanded now, but it still includes the advanced nations and describes many nations’ future vulnerability to fiscal problems related to population aging.
It includes a concern held (and expressed) by Roro and others, that cuts in Social Security benefits* and the equivalent in other nations will put people into poverty — and shows how much.
http://www.axisto.com/webcasting/investis/prudential/jackson-2010-csis-global-aging/data/GAP%20Index%20Roll%20Out%20Presentation.pdf
To save you some time, a 10 per cent cut* in Social Security benefits (what nobody is seeking, so don’t worry) would put 3 (three) per cent of elderly households in the US into poverty. Small fraction, but a large number, obviously, and some more deeply than others (not elaborated in the CSIS report). (The report defines poor households and thus “into poverty” as being below one-half the median income for all households.)
If you’re curious, I’ll also add that the report notes that public benefits are currently (2007) 35.1 per cent of all elderly income and will exceed 40 per cent in 2040.
My final digression-comment (since people are discussing Social Security benefit adequacy, future benefit reforms that may be painful, etc.) concerns the bear market as part of the tough times coming 2020-onward as Baby Boomers retire and sell assets in large numbers to finance them. (We have less dependence on government in the USA than in Europe, much, much less.) What most haven’t apparently thought about is what I’ve been concerned about, future Social Security benefit inadequacy that will affect so very many people who are still ignorant and unable or unwilling to learn about their future retirement prospects as far as finances go (or who can’t save anything currently, not wasting all their money on discretionary expenditures, but just can’t afford to spare any money to save for anything, now or for their retirement). So many in the future will be more dependent on Social Security than they have thought, and the question about adequacy of benefits will not only concern the “micro” problem of each person’s living, but also the “macro” problem of the economy overall, the over-exploited-and-abused “consumer spending” issue related to the economy and on how much it depends on spending. There won’t be a lot of spare money for so many to spend in their retirement years, as they might expect and as everyone else may expect. To date (actually, in earlier decades when benefits were increased to buy more votes) the issue was “dignity” and accompanied by “modern expectations” (which includes ever-earlier retirement, now obviously Jurassic Park nonsense if expected today at public expense, government employee union situation currently notwithstanding). But in the future there may be arguments for increasing benefits not due only to (individual or household) adequacy or inadequacy, but as it pertains to the overall economy.
Food for thought
* What’s being sought to control costs now and in the future is exclusively now, primarily or exclusively later, to control the growth of costs, which being a reduction in growth, many liberals say “cut.” Anything to reduce the “payout,” as I succinctly conceive it, is to be considered a cut and fought unthinkingly, as has been and currently so strongly the case.
Roro wrote:
I’ve never said that it is insane to want the elderly to be able to stay alive. (I’ve been more correct, referring to adequacy and making the distinction between that and excessive demands in the name in the past of “dignity,” for example.) Any straw DLS you’re building should stop construction, for it’s obviously false.
What is insane, as I correctly (and clearly!) have said, is that the Democrats unthinkingly resist and rail about any and all hints and beginnings of reform of any kind. No question about it (what they say and do, and what I was referring to, or should be no question).
Roro, the entitlements aren’t unsustainable because Congress stole a surplus (which is another example why reserves or rainy-day funds are a bad idea in the real world, properly viewed often in a cynical manner). The entitlements are unsustainable because they are pay-as-you-go programs that pay more than ever can or will be funded, ultimately laid waste by demographics: the aging of society.
It’s that simple. It’s compounded because after World War II the politicians increased benefits and eligibility, to buy more votes.
It’s made worse now because of insane rejection of any reform.
Logan, you actually don’t know anything about my views on entitlement reform. I might be considered an extremist on personal rights and anti-bigotry, but I am extraordinarily practical. I am extremely competent in many areas, including business, and I do understand things like sustaining growth and keeping balance sheets. The fact that I think the Republican plan is garbage does not mean that you know anything else about what I think. You haven’t actually asked me what I think. You’ve assumed, and then criticized, without asking. If you are finding me difficult to have a conversation with, perhaps it would do you well to think about why that might be. (Hint: you might start with the fact that most people don’t feel the need to defend position they haven’t taken, particularly when your assumptions are made with such vitriol and nastiness.)
I’d actually be shocked if you knew anything about Wasserman-Schultz’ positions either, besides your usual chest-beating about meanie Democrats and how awful they are, but at least that’s public information.
Roro wrote:
Nobody has simply wanted to “cut benefits” (the Ryan Medicare conversion plan is simply not a serious plan that constitutes an example in any serious discussion). What’s needed is reform that is serious, and it can only include cost controls, and costs are and will be too high in part because of oversized promises in the past. Appeals to emotion about the plight of the fraction wholly dependent on Social Security or nearly so who stand to suffer the most is not constructive and in fact, irrelevant. What matters is the structure of the program and how to pay for it (and what not to pay as much for or pay for, obviously), and what the objectives of the program(s) should be. (They may not be correct now; the expectations many certainly are incorrect now, and so are stances of many politicians past and as we see now, present.)
Means testing (which I have said will be contested, for various reasons including some good ones) at least correctly aims at that root of the problem, as you refer to it. What “promises” [sic], and to whom? (Paid for how, and by whom, you immediately can add.)
Tax increases will be needed but only should be the final resort, to be sought reluctantly and ashamedly as well as minimally, and constitute no reform at all, and risk being a crutch preventing it.
* * *
I’m really surprised, could not believe but I saw, that you said this:
The trust fund was set up during a 1983 agreement that had to be reached because Social Security was about to go bankrupt then, Roro — apparently you have been neglectful or awfully (politically) selective about history. The program already was unsustainable (as was Medicare, but that has come later), in large part as I correctly said because benefits were increased and the eligibility expanded after World War II. The program had nearly failed in 1983, was already unsustainable. Did you not know?
And the trust fund as part of the 1983 plan (which you may have meant when referring to “the original plan,” rather than the 1930s truly original plan) in no way made the program sustainable, as the projections for trust fund exhaustion that have been made for decades (not if, but the question being when) has long indicated.
At least you aren’t like Democrats in 2005, and now, dishonest about the program now as well as earlier regarding its problems and its unsustainability. (Surely you don’t say it’s fine, has no problems, has no budget effect, and can be left alone and should be for at least thirty years, or that any reform is “unacceptable” or that no reduction in total payments to all recipients ever be made.)
Presumably you aren’t accusing me of insensitivity — I’ve been more studied and “advocative” about Social Security (and Medicare) adequacy and studied about other liberal “causes” than many liberals (despite their loserish reaction on here that may indicate a feeling of denial sometimes when I note this aloud). As I wrote to Shannon Lee[e] before, I’ve been knowledgeable and made correct statements about the entitlements and the need for reform unlike so many associated with the entitlements, and in addition I’ve qualified decades early for Medicare (and Social Security disability) and have to study it more because I may be forced to rely on it depending on future circumstances. (And my health insurance is already affected, as is access to providers of health services, merely by being eligible for and thus already tainted by Medicare.) As I’ve said before, $2,000+ a month isn’t adequate as a sole income. (I’ve also said that the antiquated and counterproductive laws or agency rules restricting work and income earning are terrible and need to be reformed as part of entitlement reform. It’s a similar thing with poor “welfare” programs, punishing people for working while receiving assistance of some kind. Work and income earning shouldn’t be treated ever in any kind of punitive way!) Never make false accusations either of lack of knowledge or of empathy, ever, as it doesn’t do you (as well as me) any good, Ma’am. You’re overly touchy and overreactive about things; I’m not, but I am touchy to a normal extent, yes. I’m hardly indifferent to suffering.
“What is insane, as I correctly (and clearly!) have said, is that the Democrats unthinkingly resist and rail about any and all hints and beginnings of reform of any kind”
Well, DLS, I wanted to make clear what we’re talking about. (Perhaps you do not think “dignity” matters, but it, also, is not insane.) You know very well that I am a Democrat, and I hope that you know by now, even if you disagree with me, that I do not “unthinkingly” do anything; I’ve clearly stated here that my views on entitlements are they they need to be modified, but in the right way, and that what the Republicans are proposing is nothing close to that. When you start your comments with the idea that Democrats (not just politicians, but all of us) are not only insane — when frankly their goal is to keep people alive, which we’ve already established is not insane — and that they are all the same, and that they don’t think, most people take that as a sign that you can easily be dismissed because you’re just a partisan hack with a religious hatred of Democrats. I don’t think this is the case with you, DLS (god knows why sometimes), but I absolutely see why others do. I think you have a lot of good ideas (unlike someone else here), and I don’t think you’re being dishonest or even disingenuous about them, but it’s so grating to get to them because you couch everything in terms of the insane and evil Democrats. You can do better.
roro, I’m happy to start giving you the opportunity to define your own beliefs and avoid making assumptions as soon as you extend to myself and others the same courtesy.
The same goes for your objections to “vitriol and nastiness,” both terms which serve well to describe many, many, many of your comments to me and, well, pretty much everyone who dares to ever disagree with you about anything at all. See, e.g. “you can easily be dismissed because you’re just a partisan hack with a religious hatred of Democrats.”
I’m not happy to see that you are yet again asking to be the beneficiary of a rather gross double standard where you and your allies get to be as abusive as you like whenever you like, but everyone is supposed to treat you with kid-glove courtesy.
“the Ryan Medicare conversion plan is simply not a serious plan that constitutes an example in any serious discussion”
Ah, see, now we’re getting somewhere. No, it’s not a serious plan. As evil and unthinking as you think Democrats are, it is the Republicans who were contending that Ryan’s plan was serious. Saying that “nobody” was serious about it (or even that it’s not being mostly replicated in the plan currently passed by House Republicans) is not correct, DLS. That you don’t take it seriously is to your credit; that you think this is not the plan of others is not. That it’s not a serious plan does not in any way mean that it will not be championed, passed, and implemented by the leaders of the Republican party, if they are not met with fierce opposition. (The same could be said for other issues with the Democrats, but for this issue, it’s the Republicans.)
“I’m happy to start giving you the opportunity to define your own beliefs and avoid making assumptions as soon as you extend to myself and others the same courtesy.
”
I react to the beliefs you state in your posts, Logan. You have a platform on which to stand and yell your beliefs until kingdom come. I am a commenter, and I comment on those beliefs you profess. You almost can’t help yourself but from putting nastiness into each and every post and comment. That I react in kind shouldn’t surprise you. There is a double standard because you start conversations as a poster, and I can merely react to the tone you set and the words you use in describing your views. If I wrote posts here, you could then see what tone I set, and react in kind. See how that works?
The same goes when you butt into a conversation without reading it (or perhaps merely without understanding it?) and tell people they’re wrong in the rudest way possible, again, without even checking to see what the content of the conversation is. That happened here on this thread. That my reaction was to tell you that, um, no, you’re incorrect, also in the rudest way possible, should also be totally expected.
“pretty much everyone who dares to ever disagree with you about anything at all”
Not true at all. I’ve had a lot of great conversations with people here I totally disagree with. The defining factor of those conversations was that the other person was able to continue to engage without resorting to insult or bigotry. Yes, I will absolutely insult back in those situtaions. It’s a shame that most people don’t understand that I can argue absolutely passionately without being insulting as long as I am doing so with someone else capable of the same. I do not roll over when pushed. I suppose I am no “lady”. I’m fine with that.
The Problem is Roro that you try and change it just like you did in your statement above. I did not say anything about it having “an effect” I said there were no cuts. No one would ever get a smaller check. Now that may be wrong, but no one who depended on it would get a smaller check. Would the checks increase slower? Sure. Would there be other issues? Of course. But the fact is those that needed it would never get less money than they do right now. It would still increase, we would continue to spend more. So to try and frame the issue to deceive people into thinking they would actually get a smaller check is what Wasserman and others like you try and do. Now lets see if you are able to respond without personal attacks?
Oy. EEllis, you said her point was weak and inaccurate (I paraphrased that “Shultz was incorrect”), and I said it wasn’t weak. I said her point was correct. There were no insults in that comment nor in this one, EEllis.
Congratulations?
No offense but come on. All this being off topic to the main point but I even broke down why and how I thought it was misleading and you come back with “I said it wasn’t weak. I said her point was correct.” That isn’t a discussion. Maybe you don’t want to revisit that point but then you are going on about a tangent point to a tangent point to the original discussion. If my point about your redefining of others statements are your biggest issue then fine, but you clearly did change both my words and my intent. Perhaps you changed them to what you believed the intent to be, but you were incorrect.
EEllis, I deeply and humbly apologize if your intent was different than my paraphrase. I pinky swear it wasn’t intentional. It’s Friday night. An argument over whether or not inaccurate is really close enough to incorrect to make a reasonable paraphrase and whether cutting future payments is really a “cut” in effect or name is not how I intend to spend mine. Time for beefeater. Have a good one.
No problem.
Roro wrote:
Careful. I’ve been at the forefront of distinguishing earlier-decades vote-buying “dignity” BS from what I’ve said more than any other liberal on here, that the adequacy of Social Security benefits, particularly for those dependent wholly or nearly so on them, is a serious issue, and that this will blossom as the Baby Boomers retire and so many discover they’re in worse shape than they thought or weren’t thinking about earlier.
Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else who doesn’t know or care?
As for my correct use of “insane,” it was true for the Dems in 2005 and is even more true now, when it comes to entitlement reform and their insane rejection of and resistance to any of it.
You could well be Green or some more obscure farther-left party had we a true multi-party system with proportional representation.
You sometimes get emotional and write apparently without thinking. Typically it’s when something makes you upset or disgusted or something similar.
I’ve said that current reforms are tame and that the Ryan plan is not reform. It’s transformation, the word I prefer, of Medicare from a publicly funded health care program to subsidized private health insurance almost none of the beneficiaries will be able to afford, if they’ll be offered any serious insurance at all, that is.
“Most people” — how ironic you wrongly accuse me of sweeping and incorrect generalizations! Wow.
Just pushing back against the great preponderance leaning the other way
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ship_20list.jpg
and which is worse than what I choose to write, but I give them a taste of their tone just to perhaps teach them something.
Keeping a small corner lit, at least, in other words.
Roro wrote:
No, now you’re getting somewhere, finally. I’ve been critical of Ryan’s plan and explained what it clearly is for ages.
Just shoving back a fraction. It’s not I who write stupid or vicious articles about conservatives and Republicans, or who posts the same, that are far worse in content and tone than what I post.
Be careful not to equivocate, or to misinterpret their (GOP’s) use of language. At least that plan was formal (and seriously intended, at least as an opening negotiating position eventually). The Dems have had no plan (one example of misconduct that the public had repudiated in November 2010).
See my previous remark. I was aware of all this and wrote this in the past, as soon as Ryan’s plan became “serious” (i.e., it was put into writing and made public and claimed as an official plan of the House GOP). I regret if that wasn’t encountered or understood.
Not the budget, of course, but about entitlement reform? Ryan’s plan is not reform.
Frankly, I’m disappointed at liberal critics (I’ve written this before and perhaps it wasn’t encountered or understood, either) that it is another post-1994 similarity of sorts, in that what’s implied if not stated is that (with the market shopper stuff) this constitutes “empowerment” of the beneficiaries, while liberal critics and everyone else, too, considers it to be (to varying levels of use of the word and the meanings associated with it) abandonment. I’m disappointed it hasn’t happened, though the critics probably presume everyone feels that way.
Medicare reform? Ultimately it will be done by rationing, due to costs, to the federal government rather than to each individual. There likely will be means testing, converting it to Medicaid for All. (with the Medicaid trap, as I’ve said, and asset recovery, and the moral inversion or paradox inherent in means testing, etc.)
Social Security reform? Means testing, or keeping it universal (the same for Medicare, to ensure some continued support and some more willingness to pay taxes for it) but greatly reducing benefits for those who are wealthier or have higher incomes from working. (Incorporating means testing into the benefit structure could work, just as the 25% of total cost Medicare Part B bogus “premiums” could be variable depending on wealth and income. This permits universal entitlements, retaining broad support for entitlement programs, unlike programs primarily for the poor.)
(“Insane?” It’s insane to punish or prohibit working while getting benefits — which flies in the face of means testing but supports productivity as well as raising living standards for the elderly and disabled. Social Security was meant to be supplemental, rather than sole, retirement income and it ought to be that way as much as possible. Plus, workers pay FICA taxes, don’t forget.)
Ah, dls, I think we could have good conversations if we could set a few ground rules. Extremely frustrating conversations, perhaps, but actual communication none the less. It’s a thing rare enough such that I might be willing; we’ll see.Tonight, though, is not the night. I genuinely wish you a weekend as lovely as the one I’m having.
All you need to do is not so much to try harder, Roro, but to let go of a lot of baggage that’s really wrecking things. (The bigger stuff just will take 10-20 years.)
I hope your weekend is as good as mine. I’m honestly hoping it’s at least as good, and hopefully better, genuinely (but you probably know that’s true).
[...] Allen West: Steadfastly Boorish (UPDATED) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]