Medved Meltdown, Part III
Well, the transcript of the Medved Meltdown is now available, thanks to Media Matters, a media watchdog group. You can listen to the audio file on their website; I'm swiping the transcript and republishing it here. Thanks guys.
UPDATE: Forgot to mention, you can listen to an MP3 of the Medved Meltdown directly by clicking here, courtesy of Media Matters.
I hope you enjoy---I sure did.
-------
From the May 11 edition of The Michael Medved Show:
MEDVED: Fourty-four minutes past the hour on The Michael Medved Show. My question for our guest Hans Riemer. He is with the "I Heart Social Security" campaign of Rock the Vote. It's sort of an alliance of slackers and geezers to try to make sure that we continue bankrupting the country to pay very high and continually rising Social Security benefits. Given the fact that in really a couple years -- we're talking about seven years, it could be that soon -- we will be paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in payroll taxes, where is -- how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?
RIEMER: Let me answer that question. But I'd like to just go back to something earlier -- you said that I offered a lie on something. I wanted to read you a quote from the president of the United States. It was reported in ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." Now, you accused me of lying for calling that privatization. I don't think that's fair.
MEDVED: No, no, I accused you of lying by saying -- now, if you want to bring it back up again, this doesn't make you look good, sir. What you wrote is: "There are some politicians who want to phase Social Security out." President Bush -- let us acknowledge this, please -- he has never said "I want to get rid of Social Security." He has never said they don't think we should have a Social Security program at all --
RIEMER: But he favors privatization. Would you agree with that?
MEDVED: No! Absolutely not!
RIEMER: Alright, so the quote --
MEDVED: This is a bloody lie! What he was doing is he was not saying --
RIEMER: No -- I am lying now, okay.
MEDVED: Hold on. Hold on.
RIEMER: So even though the president of the United States said, "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace," when I call that privatization, I'm lying?
MEDVED: No -- first of all, you said he favors privatization. He was simply defining privatization there.
RIEMER: Which he favors.
MEDVED: He -- where does he ever say that "I favor privatization"?
RIEMER: His plan allows the individual worker --
MEDVED: What we are talking about, personal, voluntary personal --
RIEMER: -- his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace. That's the definition of his plan.
MEDVED: You know, words sometimes mean something, sir. Private -- managed voluntary personal accounts, optional personal accounts, is not what people call privatization.
RIEMER: That's what the president called privatization.
MEDVED: Well, it's unclear with what you just read.
RIEMER: I think it's crystal clear! "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." What could be clearer than that?
MEDVED: All right, first of all, it is clearly not privatization if what you are doing is allowing people to take one-third of the total money they put in. Privatization usually means that, okay, all of a sudden the government doesn't owe you anything anymore, you're going to take care of yourself. And that's not -- that what they -- for instance, like the system they have in Chile. That is not the system that President Bush has proposed, and there is not a single American politician -- and you wouldn't even dare try to name one -- there's not even one politician who has said, "We want to get rid of Social Security."
RIEMER: Well, here's one politician who said this: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."
MEDVED: And who said --
RIEMER: That was Chris Chocola.
MEDVED: Who?
RIEMER: Chris Chocola.
MEDVED: Who is that?
RIEMER: Member of Congress from Indiana.
MEDVED: Chris what?
RIEMER: Chocola, C-O -- C-H-O-C-O-L-A.
MEDVED: Okay, I don't know that particular member of Congress, I'm not even sure he is a member of Congress.
RIEMER: Oh, gosh, give me a break, Michael.
MEDVED: If that's the best you can do --
RIEMER: You're going to dispute that this guy is a member of Congress? I mean, what kind of stuff are you pushing here?
MEDVED: Okay, if that's the best you can do --
RIEMER: That was just exactly what you asked me to do! I'm just coming back to you with a fact.
MEDVED: Okay.
UPDATE: Forgot to mention, you can listen to an MP3 of the Medved Meltdown directly by clicking here, courtesy of Media Matters.
I hope you enjoy---I sure did.
-------
From the May 11 edition of The Michael Medved Show:
MEDVED: Fourty-four minutes past the hour on The Michael Medved Show. My question for our guest Hans Riemer. He is with the "I Heart Social Security" campaign of Rock the Vote. It's sort of an alliance of slackers and geezers to try to make sure that we continue bankrupting the country to pay very high and continually rising Social Security benefits. Given the fact that in really a couple years -- we're talking about seven years, it could be that soon -- we will be paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in payroll taxes, where is -- how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?
RIEMER: Let me answer that question. But I'd like to just go back to something earlier -- you said that I offered a lie on something. I wanted to read you a quote from the president of the United States. It was reported in ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." Now, you accused me of lying for calling that privatization. I don't think that's fair.
MEDVED: No, no, I accused you of lying by saying -- now, if you want to bring it back up again, this doesn't make you look good, sir. What you wrote is: "There are some politicians who want to phase Social Security out." President Bush -- let us acknowledge this, please -- he has never said "I want to get rid of Social Security." He has never said they don't think we should have a Social Security program at all --
RIEMER: But he favors privatization. Would you agree with that?
MEDVED: No! Absolutely not!
RIEMER: Alright, so the quote --
MEDVED: This is a bloody lie! What he was doing is he was not saying --
RIEMER: No -- I am lying now, okay.
MEDVED: Hold on. Hold on.
RIEMER: So even though the president of the United States said, "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace," when I call that privatization, I'm lying?
MEDVED: No -- first of all, you said he favors privatization. He was simply defining privatization there.
RIEMER: Which he favors.
MEDVED: He -- where does he ever say that "I favor privatization"?
RIEMER: His plan allows the individual worker --
MEDVED: What we are talking about, personal, voluntary personal --
RIEMER: -- his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace. That's the definition of his plan.
MEDVED: You know, words sometimes mean something, sir. Private -- managed voluntary personal accounts, optional personal accounts, is not what people call privatization.
RIEMER: That's what the president called privatization.
MEDVED: Well, it's unclear with what you just read.
RIEMER: I think it's crystal clear! "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." What could be clearer than that?
MEDVED: All right, first of all, it is clearly not privatization if what you are doing is allowing people to take one-third of the total money they put in. Privatization usually means that, okay, all of a sudden the government doesn't owe you anything anymore, you're going to take care of yourself. And that's not -- that what they -- for instance, like the system they have in Chile. That is not the system that President Bush has proposed, and there is not a single American politician -- and you wouldn't even dare try to name one -- there's not even one politician who has said, "We want to get rid of Social Security."
RIEMER: Well, here's one politician who said this: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."
MEDVED: And who said --
RIEMER: That was Chris Chocola.
MEDVED: Who?
RIEMER: Chris Chocola.
MEDVED: Who is that?
RIEMER: Member of Congress from Indiana.
MEDVED: Chris what?
RIEMER: Chocola, C-O -- C-H-O-C-O-L-A.
MEDVED: Okay, I don't know that particular member of Congress, I'm not even sure he is a member of Congress.
RIEMER: Oh, gosh, give me a break, Michael.
MEDVED: If that's the best you can do --
RIEMER: You're going to dispute that this guy is a member of Congress? I mean, what kind of stuff are you pushing here?
MEDVED: Okay, if that's the best you can do --
RIEMER: That was just exactly what you asked me to do! I'm just coming back to you with a fact.
MEDVED: Okay.
posted by Hans Riemer at 9:47 AM
46 Comments:
Ive been reading the past few comments on the blog...while I don't know Medved that well, it seems Reimer comes off looking like a moron in that transcript. Basically, the first half was stupid back and forth over definitions. "Personal" is better than "private" in this case because a worker can CHOOSE only to put ONE THIRD of his or her money to put in very conservative Government-controlled bonds (excuse me if I my paraphrase about the bonds isn't worded well). For many people, this Bush plan is too weak because it doesn't personalize enough money.
As for the second part, Medved said he never heard of the representative and said he MIGHT not even exist. He never called Riemer a liar over that. In a previous blog comment, it has been disproven that the representative wants to privatize social security fully. So it amuses me that not only that Hans comes off losing his supposed "victory", but that he spends 3 posts on stupidity instead of addressing the arguments that run counter to his on these blogs. What a waste Rock the Vote and Hans have become. Oh, and this 22 year old has not seen one person with that stupid I heart SS shirt! Thank god
Are you kidding me? Is this what Hans is calling a success? There was not one thing of substance discussed at all in this exchange. Hans didn't even address the original question posed to him. When asked how he thought we could save the system from going bankrupt due to rising costs and not enough workers to support the upcoming retirees, Hans breaks out into a discussion about the difinition of privatization. Who gives a crap about the definition of privatization or personal accounts? I would like to hear Hans's answer to the original question.
So what, some congressman from Indiana said he wants to privatize the whole system. What did Hans do to educate anyone in that discussion? Nothing. But then again, to liberals, success is not measured by accomplishments; rather, it's measured by how much they care about an issue. I have no doubt Hans cares about the issue, but he offers no plan or solution to a problem that every politician admits is coming. I know he says we don't have to do anything until the problem gets here, but in my household and in my job, I don't like to wait until the problem blows up in my face for me to address it.
Join the debate, Hans, and help develop a solution. If private/personal accounts aren't the solution, what is?
What a joke. I can't believe this is what Hans has been pumping himself up about. Man, you are looking for any iota of success if this if what you are considering a romping. Attach the audio of the Neil Cavuto show if you are so tough and confident.
Does anyone have the audio link to the Neil Cavuto show that Hans appeared on? If so, I'll buy a "I heart SS" T-shirt if you provide the link.
It's pretty sad that this is all that Hans has to hang his hat on.
- symantics over a quote in 2000 dealing with private vs. personal vs. privitazation
- A quote from a man that wasn't even a congressman when he said it
How about you answer the real question "how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?"
After reading the transcript and listening I think it's a pretty far stretch to call it a meltdown. It's actually much to do about nothing.
Hans can you post the transcript from Fox?
Get a grip. You sissies got it handed to you on the Fox show, too, even though you had Neil Cavuto to fight for you.
If we are sissies? How come Hans is running from the Neil Cavuto interview like an intern from Bill Clinton? You never heard a peep from Hans about his little appearance on Fox. Probably because when Hans deals with someone with half a brain you start hearing the howl of wind in Hans's empty skull.
To be fair, why doesn't he post the transcript? Why didn't he at least say he was going to be on the show? Hans thought it was important enough to let everyone know that RTV was going to be a question on Jeopardy. Whoopty freakin do!! I have a feeling hans is a little embarassed by his appearance.
By the way, I didn't get anything handed to me. If you live your life feeling good because you think Hans won a debate against someone named Medved, you need to get out. The only group getting something handed to them is the youth of this country by Hans and the AARP. What we're getting handed is a flaming bag of excrement called Social Security.
I guess all the RTV staffers stopped posting today. I thought something was up yesterday. Good try Hans and RTV. We will see the real response to this garbage today.
The solution is a new President who doesn't suck at managing the national checkbook. George Bush turned a surplus into a deficit and now insist current and future seniors have to clean up his financial mess. No thanks.
Let's take a look at the current "successes", shall we?
The largest deficit in American history. Overall poverty is up, the number of children in poverty is up, and household income is down. There are more people without health insurance. Incidents of terrorism are up, and this Administration's response to that inconvenient fact was to leave the numbers out of the official reoport.
Meanwhile, Americans continue to die because the President decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and lied to us about the reasons for doing so. We had the sympathy of the entire planet on Sept. 12, 2001, and in four years have managed not only to piss that away but to increase anti-American anger and undermine our own security in just about every corner of the globe.
If that's your definition of success I'd hate to see what you call failure.
But I think we're missing the point here: who gets the RTV after party tickets??
longhorn, how many times must I post this before people begin to understand:
The President has no spending authority, it is not the President who approves spending, its the congress. If you want to blame someone eating up deficits go blame them for approving requests and budget items, because they control the purse strings in Washington.
Also, Hans, next time you want to brag about winning an irrelevant argument with a talk show host pick a better issue other than a quote by someone before he was elected to office. Like I've said before, I have no idea who Medvid is and I don't hold talk show hosts up as idols, but before you posted this transcript you had me convinced that Medvid was a rabid lunatic and you simply won the day. Thanks for clearing that up.
Hans can you post the transcript from Fox?
Excellent question. Reimer is dodging the Fox News issue because he knows he got it handed to him on there, and everyone who saw it knows it. Thus, he is left to try to cover it up by drawing attention to the Medved feud instead. Typical political game by Hans Reimer, demagogue of the liberal left. How unfortunate, too, because Social Security reform is one Bush policy that anyone with any sense in our generation would support. This is no war in Iraq.
But anyway, let's play Reimer's semantics game, shall we? Reimer keeps on alleging that the Bush plan is "privatization." Now, he refers to the President's use of the word, but if Reimer paid as much attention to the rest of the President's statements as he selectively did to that statement, he'd see the President has NEVER advocated "privatization" of Social Security. Partial stock market investment as an option, yes- privatization, no. Those who believe Reimer will continue to believe Reimer, but let's just see what Dictionary.com has to say about this:
pri·va·tize Audio pronunciation of "privatization" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-tz)
tr.v. pri·va·tized, pri·va·tiz·ing, pri·va·tiz·es
To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise: “The strike... was called to protest the... government's plans to break up and privatize the deficit-ridden national railway system” (Christian Science Monitor).
The Bush plan gives the option for people to invest 2-4% of their 12.4% Social Security taxes in the stock market. That is NOT transferring control of Social Security to private enterprise. Thus, it is not "privatizing" Social Security.
Stop scaring people, Hans, and get back to the issue at hand- the fact that you- and your supporters- are selling this generation out in favor of more tax hikes, deficit spending, and budget cuts in the future, with no option to invest. And, of course, the fact that you completely distort the truth by trying to dupe people into thinking they're BETTER OFF under the current system; something even the Social Security Administration itself would laugh at.
Sean Foushee is an idiot. The president sends his budget to congress for approval. When one party has control of both the legislative and executive branches then the presidents budget is almost entirely his own. But lets for arguments sake and your feeble mind pretend that the legislative branch wasn't in Bush's control. He still ultimately signs any spending bills or other bill into law. He has the power to veto a bill, something he has yet to do. So Sean Foushee I suggest you stop listening to the right wing echo chamber(this is how the right wing radio tries to frame the issue) and start reading and researching before you discuss a topic. This way you won't get your ass handed to you.
As for those that believe privitization(this is a Republican term for those that are ignorant not Hans or Dems) is the key to success in old age are willfilly ignorant and ignorantly hypocritical. See the conservative mantra of personal responsibility and no government interference, that would only ruin peoples lives, would dictate that the government owes the people nothing, the people want nothing from the government, and government involvement in the 401k business would only become a bureaucratic mess. To try and change the conservative philosphy without understanding where conservatives stand on the issue is the problem with generation xy&zers who think that privitization is a good idea. It's this rash judgement that immaturity plays in the instant gratification crowd. This is why debate and getting people to understand the arguments for both sides is necessary. As people have learned about the issue, gen xyz have realized that Bush's privitization scheme doesn't work. There is a difference between risk and security. That is the difference between your 401k and SS.
There are others on this thread that scream why should we let SS bankrupt of country. SS isn't bankrupting our country. Conservatives like club for growth and Grover Norquist are the playaz behind the scene that have grown to power over the last 30 years and want to destroy our country in this manner of borrow and spend. Leaving our generation to foot the bill for the debt while they plunder our future.
Google the term norquist and bathtub and read and research for yourself. What these "faux conservatives" don't realize is that their actions to take us back to the gilded age and laissez faire economics(another topic that should be googled) that led to the great depression is something that me may not recover from again.
Why do liberals feel the need to personally attack anyone who disagrees with their position?
erik, if the Republicans in the congress were in Bush's hip pocket how come Bolton didn't get a party vote of support from the committee? How come Bush's amnesty plan (which I'm against) isn't getting pushed through the house and senate? Why aren't the republicans standing united behind Bush? Seems you're the one who needs to do some research and stop talking in general terms and stereotypes.
I find it humorous how Erik engages in a ad hominem attack, and then expects people to take his partisan rhetoric as the truth. Erik, you're engaging in the same ad-hominem "let's just shift the topic and attack the speaker" mindset that Mr. Reimer has engaged in for the past 3-4 posts with regard to Michael Medved.
Once again, I'm going to post the definition of privatization, because it is apparent that folks like Erik will do whatever they can to label this plan "privatization" in an effort to scare people into thinking that there would be no security or safety to it. The definition of privatization, AGAIN, for those of you blatantly partisan:
pri·va·tize Audio pronunciation of "privatization" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-tz)
tr.v. pri·va·tized, pri·va·tiz·ing, pri·va·tiz·es
To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise: “The strike... was called to protest the... government's plans to break up and privatize the deficit-ridden national railway system” (Christian Science Monitor).
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BEING PRIVATIZED. Get that through your heads, guys, and maybe we can finally have an honest debate on this issue. Social Security NEEDS to have a safety net and guarantees, which is EXACTLY WHY the President proposes a PARTIAL personal account OPTION for THOSE WHO WISH TO TAKE IT. For everyone else, SS benefits continue to grow, even faster for those in the lower range of income. 70% of the problem would be solved, which would save all of us a significant taxpaying headache come 2017 when the trust fund will start to demand billions of dollars per year- a number that would only continue to grow over time.
FULL PRIVATIZATION of the system should not take place. Privatization has never even been proposed by President Bush, or any other leader in the Social Security reform debate. Have some right-wing crackpots who are out of the mainstream proposed it from time to time? Absolutely- but if we're going to take their words as the truth, we should then also assume that all Democrats want to COMPLETELY SOCIALIZE HEALTHCARE, or even IMPLEMENT FULL-FLEDGED SOCIALISM (there are a few nuts on the left who have proposed such things, as you know.)
The fact of the matter is that privatization is not being advocated here by the President. He is proposing a personal account investment OPTION for those who wish to take a reduced Social Security benefit in exchange for being able to invest part of their Social Security taxes. It is as libertarian as it gets- an OPTION to THOSE WHO WISH TO TAKE IT. Combining it with progressive indexing solves most of the financing problem Social Security faces, while keeping a guaranteed benefit for those who want it- and bigger ones for lower income workers.
There is no argument against this plan, but folks like Hans and Erik will continue their demagoguery, scaring people into thinking "PRIVATIZATION" is taking place when it is not. These very folks will continue to scare people away from investing, as well- which is humorous because folks like Hans and Erik support the AARP, an organization which invests an incredible amount of money in stocks itself- and an organization which offers investment options to retirees.
This demagoguery needs to come to an end.
Hans, it looks like you won a debate on semantics but you failed to answer his question: 'how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?'
Answer his question! Answer it! Stop with the sideshow antics. Who cares what the definition of privitization is!
Stop hiding and answer the freaking question!
Hans, why do you want to DENY our generation the CHOICE to save our own money? You are anti-choice.
How can you claim to represent our generation? You don't.
PS-Hans, you have failed to answer your (very numerous) critics from your 'The Hard Sell...' blog.
If you are truly here to educate our generation, answer the critics.
You silence is damning.
You silence is damning.
The sad part is, Hans isn't silent. He's definitely saying plenty, but it's about something that has nothing to do with anything. A semantics game, intended to shift the attention away from how Hans was thoroughly owned on Fox News last week, and how he was thoroughly owned here- in his very own blog.
Hans Reimer is an excellent politician- hopefully, people see him for what he really is- a partisal politician trying to sell a bad deal to our generation. Reading all of the comments, I think anyone can get the idea that Hans is deliberately trying to mislead our generation and shift the topic away from something he cannot rationally discuss.
I personally preferred Hans' meltdown on Neil Cavuto. He was totally PWN3D by the panel!
Where's the Neil Cavuto transcript, Hans? You got destroyed. I guess that's why we are not hearing anything.
Ah, it's springtime and all the Faux News Dittoheads are sprouting like mushrooms from mounds of the their own bull**it.
Ah, it's springtime and all the Faux News Dittoheads are sprouting like mushrooms from mounds of the their own bull**it.
Yeah, now THAT took a lot of thought.
Sorry guy, but the fact of the matter is, whether you have a hatred for Fox News or not, that Hans Reimer was put to shame in that panel debate. The only thing these people are pointing out is how Hans is trying to draw all the attention to some semantics debate with Medved, while totally ignoring the fact that the Cavuto debate even took place.
Besides, if Hans Reimer lost to "Faux News," what does that say about the validity and strength of his anti-Social Security reform argument? It says plenty- that Reimer simply has no logic or reasoning to stand upon, besides promoting his own partisan agenda.
Reimer's been owned on both his own blog and "Faux News." That's quite the accomplishment list there.
Sean Foushee made my point in a previous thread..."the Prez can only submit requests and budgets." has the President vetoed a single bill? Easy yes or no answer will do.
As for Anonymous who continues to post drivel about the meaning of Privitization, who came up with the term Privitization? Bush has even used the word Privitization himself rigth around the election. Failing to answer the question results in a lose of argument. Republicans trolls are out trying to court the youth vote, unfortunately the polls reflect otherwise.
But all these arguments are besides the point. You talk about choice. What about success and the system possible? Have any of the privitization phase out schemes worked for the majority of people? Give me one case.
The troll crowd also ignore the question of a 401k sponsered by the government. Isn't this a direct contradiction of conservative philosphy? Until my questions are answered you prove yourself all trolls. I could see asking for payroll tax cuts that you could invest on your own. But allowing the government to invest money for you is a bureaucratic mess and only creates another government program ripe for corruption according to conservative philosphy. Any takers. I didn't think so, trolls.
Grover Norquist is against payroll tax reductions. The guy who said that he never met a tax cut that he didn't like said that payroll tax reductions are off the table. Why because they would benefit the majority of people and Republicans represent the conservative wealthy elites. Does anyone want to dicuss these points or will the trolls continue to dodge the issues and questions at hand?
Trolls? What's the matter with you, man? You sound like you're having a meltdown yourself.
2 examples of privatization success for you:
1. Galveston County, Texas
2. Chile
I would love payroll tax cuts.
I wouldn't want a gov't run 401k. I believe if a portion of your SS tax were to be diverted, a professional financial instituition would be doing the investing for you, and you would get to choose what institution you would use and what funds to invest in. Similar to a 401k and not run by the gov't.
Who cares about the term privatization?
Wouldn't a payroll tax cut benefit everybody thats paying the payroll tax? Are you asking me to forgoe a payroll tax reduction because some millionaire will get a bigger tax reduction because he/she pays more in payroll taxes than I do. I don't care if they get more back as long as we get the same percentage reduction.
I think that covers all of it. I don't know how to address the troll part. What they hell does that mean? Is that a put down? Sounds like something my 2 year old cousin would say to make fun of her friends.
Whatever. I don't think anyone is trying to dodge anything except for Hans. He refuses to even mention that he was on the Neil Cavuto show. Though, I probably wouldn't want to mention it either after looking like a retard on national TV.
In regards to Erik's post, I think the simple fact that he refers to his dissenters here as "trolls" shows his maturity- or apparent lack thereof- and his frustration at trying to defend a position on this issue that simply does not make sense.
Erik, I don't care if the President used the term "privatization." He is also the same guy who has used the word "nucular" numerous times, and the same guy who created the word "misunderestimated." The President communicates in a rather strange way, and he's botched and misused words left and right. He may have referred to his plan as "privatization" from time to time, but ANYONE IN THE KNOW about Social Security reform positions knows that PRIVATIZATION IS NOT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL.
In fact, outside a few far right wing representatives, privatization has never even been advocated by anyone. It is economically impossible, politically impossible, and thus no one is going to discuss it. I posted the definition of "privatization" because both you and Hans Reimer are attempting to scare people into thinking this is privatization when it very clearly is not.
Would I like to see a payroll tax cut? Sure. Would I like to be able to invest that saved money by myself without a single bit of government control? Absolutely. But the fact of the matter is that if such a plan was proposed, liberals such as yourself would be the first to complain about it, demagoguing it into saying it's "destruction of Social Security" and the "elimination of a guarantee!" (even though the current program can't even fullfill its guarantees). Thus, the President is left to create a system that continues to keep the safety net, while giving people an OPTION to choose among a few different investment options.
It was worked perfectly well for the government employees in the Thrift Savings Plan, which of course is why Democrats refuse to force government workers to pay into Social Security (funny how they want government employees to have personal accounts, but for the rest of us not to).
The Bush plan may not present all the choice or as big of a choice as we want, but the facts are clear: the Bush plan solves 70% of the funding problem with Social Security, and it also gives people an OPTION to invest part of their payroll taxes.
That's a choice, which is something anything status-quo liberals do not offer.
That's a 70% elimination of the funding problem, which is 70% more than anything those very same liberals have to offer.
Quit playing semantics, and quit dodging the reality of this issue.
Nice to see the RNC talking points about Bush's incompentence with the English language (along with everything else) on the page. It's about the only thing Republicans believe in recycling.
The entire argument about Social Security from the Bush side is irrelevant, regardless of the semantics, because the right wing doesn't want to change the program, they want to get rid of it. Any argument of terminology is just white noise.
This White House doesn't care about Seniors, or health care, or the environment, or civil rights, or anyone who doesn't look like them. They want to destroy everything that FDR did and everything that LBJ did. They fundamentally don't believe in a democracy that looks out for the welfare of its citizens.
So quit trying to bollox up the conversation by pretending BushCo cares about the future of Social Security. The only future they care about for Social Security is one in which it doesn't exist.
^ I'm glad we have this guy over here (anonymous above) to show what happens when you read too much MoveOn.org.
Arguing this Social Security reform is a plan to "destroy" Social Security or get rid of it altogether is nothing more than a slippery slope argument, which is fallacious reasoning for those of you who never took a class in logic.
The bill is the bill- quit arguing that somehow this will "destroy" the program. The dishonesty and dirty politics being played by those of you on the partisan left on this issue is simply unparalleled (and is also the reason why I ditched my Democratic registration last year).
The fact that you don't like the criticism doesn't make it any less true. It's one thing to change Social Security because you have a budget surplus and are looking for what to do with all that money. It's another to use your own financial ineptitude as a fig leaf to eliminate a safety net that has worked for 60 years.
And if it's honesty you want, I'd suggest starting with a party that doesn't lie about why it's starting a war and getting 1600 Americans killed.
And even though I'm not a member, everything moveon.org has said has proven to be true, and everything the Bush Administration has said has proven to be a lie.
So what's your point?
OH my, Lord? It didn't take long for your true colors to shine through anon. I don't think this administration has been truthful about everything, and I certainly don't think moveon.org is truthful about everything. The sooner you come to the realization that none of these politicians or organizations have YOUR best interests in mind, the sooner you will remove those blinders off your eyes. I'm for anyone that is going to put more control in my hands regardless of their party affiliation.
Keep thinking moveon.org or your politicians have your interests in mind and see where this country ends up because of your blind faith.
Once again, you've answered with a non-sequitur in an attempt to get the conversation off-track because you have no factual answer to my central point. It's not a question of faith, despite what the Bush Administration would have you believe. It's a matter of picking the best policy options based on the record of whoever is offering them.
And the record of the Bush Administration is everything they touch, from the economy to Iraq, turns to shit, and I don't believe in rewarding failure. As the Onion headline so presciently put it in 2000, "Bush: Our Eight Year Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Officially Over."
Politicians are no better or worse than the rest of society. If anything, they are a mirror of our own stupidity, short-sightedness, and greed.
So if you think that handing your retirement to Bush's campaign contributors is giving you more control, you're delusional.
All I hear are RNC and right wing echo chamber talking points devoid of any facts by these anonymous writers. Thus the term trolls. If you repeat RNC talking points, or any talking points for that matter, as opposed to actually reading and researching a topic you are troll. Galveston Texas and Chile are disasters. Just because you heard Faux News and Rush Limbaugh use these as cases of succes doesn't make it true. Studies have shown that had the systems not been privitized these people would have been better off sticking with their SS plans. The people in both places wish they could go back to the old systems. Please do some research before repeating Sean, Rush, Bill and the gang.
As for the other anony who likes to repeat the other debunked Bush/RNC talking point about Thrift Savings Plan. You have proven yourelf to be willfully ignorant. From the Thrift Savings Plan website, http://www.tsp.gov/features/chapter01.html#sub5, "Participating in the TSP does not affect the amount of your Social Security benefit or your FERS Basic Annuity". The TSP is on top of your SS. It's the government version of a 401k. The same type of 401k that your employer in the private sector gives you. I guess the trolls didn't get the memo that Republicans should stop using the TSP as example. The question I have is will you ever trust Sean, Rush, Bill and Faux Opinion Channel again?
As for the Anony who likes to tell gives defintions then doesn't care who coined the terms. The word Privitization of SS was started by Republicans, specifically Frank Luntz. So trying to explain it away by claiming that Bush is a moron only reitirates my point again. You either believe that the goal is privitization a goal of big R Republicans or you believe the bill of goods you are being sold by Republicans who gear their policy intiatives towards conservative wealthy elites. The majority in our generation and across the board chose not to beleive the Republicans.
One more ass whooping to go. The anony who likes to talk about fear being used by Democrats. This is another RNC talking point on how to frame the issue. Is it fear mongering to tell the truth? Are Republcians participating in fear by calling SS in crisis from something that has consistently remained over 35 years from becoming insolvent? Meaning that every year the SSA comes out with new projections and every year those projection pretty much remain unchanged. Meaning that the insolvency date of SS is consistently being moved backwards. There are much more pressing needs that must be addressed. Medicare, national debt, a balanced budget, and progressive taxation. I know for most of us that came of age under Clinton that these issues became non-factors. But Bush has set us back 15 years in a mere 5.
If you want to be beleived and not a troll then come to the table with facts not RushFauxNewsOliellySeanInsanityRNC talking points that the RNC stopped using monthes ago.
Eric, I love the way you ridicule other blogs for not having some sort of facts to back up their claims while your blog completely lacks facts to back up your position.
Example:
"Galveston Texas and Chile are disasters. Just because you heard Faux News and Rush Limbaugh use these as cases of succes doesn't make it true. Studies have shown that had the systems not been privitized these people would have been better off sticking with their SS plans. The people in both places wish they could go back to the old systems. Please do some research before repeating Sean, Rush, Bill and the gang."
Hmmm, I've read through this piece of propaganda, and I can't seem to find one single fact to back up your claim. You want to see my research? Here you go. Read the article attached for all the facts you need. All you need to do is a simple google search for yourself and you will see the widespread success of the galveston privatization. The real evidence is that they have not reverted back to the current SS system you and I are stuck in. What does that tell you? And don't tell me the gov't won't allow them back in, they are the ones who closed the hole for counties to opt out.
Social Security Alternative Already Working in Texas
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
February 03, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - The personal retirement plan sketched out in President Bush's State of the Union Address has been universally derided by Democrats as an unworkable privatization of the retirement program.
"As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers, and the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts," Bush said during the address Wednesday night.
"Here is how the idea works: Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees," Bush explained. "If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
President Bush warned the nation that 13 years from now -- in 2018 -- Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in. He also had a message for Americans 55 and older: "Do not let anyone mislead you;" he said: "For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that all 44 Senate Democrats were united against the president's plan to reform Social Security. Without knowing any details, Reid told reporters, "President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security," adding, "It will not happen."
But privatized Social Security has been a fact of life for municipal employees in Galveston County, Texas, for nearly a quarter century. Local government workers voted overwhelmingly in 1981 to opt-out of Social Security in favor of a locally controlled system that has since been widely described as a phenomenal success.
Under federal law at the time, municipal workers had the option of not participating in the Social Security program, replacing it with private retirement accounts. The private system is subject to regular payroll deductions and employer matches, essentially mirroring Social Security tax withholding and employer match provisions.
"There are a number of [county employees] that are strong advocates and say it's really a very, very good, solid, strong, financially and fiscally strong program that is for the benefit of county employees far in excess of what Social Security would be," Galveston County Legal Department Director Harvey Bazaman told Cybercast News Service.
Under Galveston's "Alternate Plan," the county withholds approximately six percent of each employee's salary for retirement. That money, along with a partial match by the county, is invested in personal accounts for each participating employee. The remaining county match covers the cost of disability and life insurance policies for employees, which also pay benefits much higher than those offered by Social Security.
While the employee-employer funding formulas are nearly identical under both Social Security and the Galveston Alternate Plan, the results are very different.
The U.S. Treasury Bonds purchased with money from the Social Security "trust fund" pay approximately two percent. But for the period from 1982 through 1997 the rate of return on funds invested in the Galveston plan has averaged 8.6 percent, a return more than 400 percent greater than Social Security.
Data from First Financial Benefits, which administers the Galveston Alternate Plan, shows that county workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security.
Due to having more money withheld and the effects of compounding interest, higher income employees in Galveston see even larger benefits under the Alternate Plan. Workers earning $51,263 a year could retire at 65 with a monthly benefit of $3,846, while the same worker participating in Social Security would receive $1,540 each month.
Even the relatively low "guaranteed rate of return" in the Galveston plan roughly doubles the rate of return for Social Security. Funds already invested in annuities have a guaranteed yield of 3.75 percent, according to Bazaman. As for money being placed into private accounts today, Bazaman said the rate is slightly higher at 4.24 percent.
"They have never lost money. They have gone through double recessions in the 1980s, recessions in the 90s, and a tech boom and bust in the 1990s and into 2000," said Charles Jarvis, chairman and CEO of USA Next-United Seniors. "They've gone through another recession, an attack on this country and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they have steadily provided income for people."
The Galveston County, Texas Alternate Plan enacted in 1981 with the approval of 78 percent of local employees proved popular locally. By 1983, local government workers in three nearby municipalities -- Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, and Texas City -- also voted to quit Social Security in favor of private retirement plans.
Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions giving municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.
The Social Security Administration estimates that, nationwide, seven million public employees opted out of the federal retirement plan before Congress eliminated that choice. Those employees' combined annual incomes for 1999 totaled $129 billion. Based on that figure, and including estimated employer matching funds, those public employees invested approximately $17 billion in variations of private retirement accounts that year rather than in Social Security.
In testimony before the President's Commission on Social Security in 2001, former Galveston County Judge Ray Holbrook relayed the story of a county commissioner who died in office.
According to Holbrook, the commissioner's widow received a $255 death benefit from Social Security. But under the Galveston Alternate Plan, she also received a lump-sum survivor's benefit of $150,000 and was entitled to her late-husband's $125,000 reserve account.
Holbrook's anecdote underscores another aspect touted by backers of private accounts -- that the money paid into them is the private property of the employee. As a result, private retirement account funds are passed on to an employee's heirs upon his or her death, unlike unpaid Social Security benefits, which are forfeited to the government.
Eric, where are the facts?
"One more ass whooping to go. The anony who likes to talk about fear being used by Democrats. This is another RNC talking point on how to frame the issue. Is it fear mongering to tell the truth? Are Republcians participating in fear by calling SS in crisis from something that has consistently remained over 35 years from becoming insolvent? Meaning that every year the SSA comes out with new projections and every year those projection pretty much remain unchanged. Meaning that the insolvency date of SS is consistently being moved backwards. There are much more pressing needs that must be addressed. Medicare, national debt, a balanced budget, and progressive taxation. I know for most of us that came of age under Clinton that these issues became non-factors. But Bush has set us back 15 years in a mere 5."
Hmm. nothing resembling a fact here. Sounds like Democratic talking points to me.
Clinton didn't raise SS taxes to keep SS solvent? Where were you? Not talking to SS recipients obviously.
Funny. Keep preaching, brother. You pretty much make my points for me.
Irresponsible ignorant American, you are getting another ass whooping. See sending links to news articles with no actual factual basis to back up what you are claiming is being willfully ignorant. Just because you read an article doesn't mean that you are being told the truth. You need to to read and research from many differnet sources to find the facts not pick and choose your source to back up your claim. If you really want to to find the facts go to the following sites and read what bipartisan studies were done on the glaveston plan first from here - the Social Security Administration did an analysis of the Galveston plan in 1999(http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf)
"Social Security tends to offer higher initial benefits than the Galveston Plan to workers with lower earnings and/or families with dependents who qualify for Social Security benefits. Although many of Galveston’s initial benefits are higher than Social Security’s, they are not indexed to inflation and lose value relative to Social Security’s over time."
Then here - the same year, the Government Accountability Office compared the two plans, coming to a similar conclusion(http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf)
In general, low-wage workers and, to a lesser extent, median-wage workers would fare better under Social Security. High-wage earners can generally expect to do better under the Alternate Plans, although if spousal benefits are included, even the high-wage workers could eventually receive higher benefits from Social Security.
As for you other claim that I don't have facts about SS solvency dates, you can find my claims at the SSA wesbite. The Bush admin just recently released the numbers.
Facts are a hard thing to dispute you ignorant fool. So please continue to being ignorant and see how far you get without the facts. I told you before read and research. But you have to watch out what you are reading because you may be getting biased information as opposed to actual facts. That's why you must read from many different sources.
As for your claim about Clinton, I have no idea what you mean. I didn't say he raised SS taxes. He raised taxes on the wealthiest amercians and balanced the budget though. The conservative icon, Reagan raised payroll taxes to sure up SS.
Do you want your ass handed to you again or will you admit the err in your ways? I can give you the facts on Chile too.
By the way these aren't blogs. They are posted comments on a blog.
Again just because you heard it in the right wing echo chamber doesn't mean that it's true. When SeanInsanityBillOliellyRush'N'Faux speak you shouldn't listen. Do the research for yourself, don't let others think for you.
Hey Erik, you little pantywaste. Explain to me why everyone in Galveston County isn't clamoring to be back into your holy grail of SS? I mean, if the alternate plan is so bad, wouldn't you think they would go back to the better of the 2 systems? That to me is proof enough. If the people in the alternate plan want to stay in it, it must not be that bad. I guess you are smarter than all 5000 of the people in the alternate plan. Maybe you should make a bus tour around Galveston with all your facts to convince everyone to get back into the federal gov't run SS program.
By the way, I still didn't see any facts in what you posted, unless you call the following a fact:
"Social Security tends to offer higher initial benefits than the Galveston Plan to workers with lower earnings and/or families with dependents who qualify for Social Security benefits. Although many of Galveston’s initial benefits are higher than Social Security’s, they are not indexed to inflation and lose value relative to Social Security’s over time."
Ok explain to me this. How low of an income do you have to make to do better in SS? What percentage of Social Security recipents are families with dependents? How much better do they do under the old system? Privatization isn't indexed for inflation, but it doesn't mention compounded interest. Also, your salary over time should increase to cover inflation. The job you have now will certainly pay more 20 years from now.
Ass whooping, i think not. You probably have never left your mommies basement to see what a real ass whoping is. You will see nothing representing an ass whooping on a blog. And no, kicking someone's ass on a playstation 2 doesn't constitute an ass whooping either.
If you need to pat yourself on the back with false claims of an asswhooping, go ahead. Maybe one day you will have a relationship with a real live woman and you will see that posting on this site really isn't that big of a deal.
Keep on keeping on, Erik.
Those down in Galveston don't have a choice to enter back into the system but i can give you further proof that they are many that do want back in. But I can't do your homework for you and continue whooping your ass. Besides you don't want facts, you want Republican agenda. So get off your knees and stop kissing the ass of whatever the right wing tells you. Read the entire report you fucking dunce and you'll get any other answers you need.
Everything else you say sound like the talk of a frustrated old man who keeps getting fucked by big R republicans and the right wing echo chamber. Facts are a hard thing getting smacked with bitch.
Poorest likely worse off after Texas town abstains from Social Security
http://www.miami.com/mld/montereyherald/news/world/10933779.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
And from the your conservative Washington Times the following was written.
The Washington Times; 6/6/1999
In 1981, the Texas counties of Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria - using a now closed loophole - withdrew from the Social Security program, setting up a system of individual accounts for their public employees.
The privatized system, known as the Galveston plan, invests employer and employee contributions directly in earmarked accounts for each worker. The average real annual rate of return has been 4.62 percent compared to 4.88 percent for Social Security.
The question still reamins will you ever trust FauxOpinionBillOlielySeanInsanityandRush again with the lies they fed you?
Otherwise just admit that you you are wrong and just like to kiss the ass of the big R Republicans because you don't think for yourself but just repeat what the right wing echo chamber told you.
Here are some facts for you:
The studies you are citing as facts assume a 4% rate of return for privatization, which is not the real rate of return. In addition, the study assumes a 100% rate of return for a single person and 150% rate of return for a married couple. Why 150% rate of return for married couples? Your study puts privatization at its worst and SS at its best and even beyond its best at 150%.
-----------------------------------
"Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return — more conservative than Galveston workers have earned — all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:
Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan — by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration — claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher"
Ass has been handed to you again ignorant american...what's your source? Do you know who the author of that study is? What policy institute wrote it? What there leanings are? Who comprises their board? What the goals of the institute are? Who funds the group? Game set match ignorant american. Ass has been handed. Get back on your knees and pucker up.
Are you ever going to trust the rigth wing echo chamber agoan? You still haven't answered the question.
Erik, you are really tring to pass off a pile of dog shit as a diamond ring if you think the current Social Security system has a higher rate of return than that of the Galveston alternate plan?
First of all, the 4.66% is the lowest possible return you can get in Galveston's Alternate plan. It is guaranteed. That's right, 4.66% rate of return, guaranteed. Now, that is the lowest possible return you can get if you are in the system, but of course, the system is going to do better. To current, it has averaged a yearly rate of return of 6.5%.
You are being very generous if you believe the rate of return for Social Security is 4.88%. Everything I ever read was 2%. I already pointed out that your propaganda was overstating the rate of return for SS. Even you have to admit that. How do you figure SS will pay out 150% of benefits to married couples, which coincidentally is the only category SS beats the Galveston system according to the study you linked. On top of that, the same study assumes the lowest rate of return possible for the Galveston system. What a joke.
Oh yeah, I'm 28 and fortunately for me, I will not have to rely on either system when I retire. I'm worried about what my daughter will have to deal with when she is of age and has to deal with this mess.
I've been screwed by all politicans. I don't know why you keep saying republicans are the only ones screwing people over. I'm overtaxed and tired of the medling gov't in my business. I'm in support of anything that I have more ownership of.
Great, the Miami Herald. I didn't realize they were the authority on SS and privatization. You sure did attach some mindnumbing facts from the article.
Also, where is the entire article from the Washington Times? Hmmm, no link.
Numbnut
There you go again. Self proclamation of success. It's been my experience that if you have to say you're cool, you're probably not. If you have to say you're a success, you're probably not. If you have to say you're a winner, you're probably not. What you are is an insecure momma's boy.
Here's your link, cockgobbler.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba514/
First of all the article is from the Chicago Tribune the link is for the Miami Herald. Proves once again that you don't read. That and the Washington Times articles are to prove a point. The point being that anyone can provide links of stories that say they are better or worse off. The Washington times link is for subscribers only. The point of that is that even the WT said that the Galveston plan doesn't measure up. The conservative rag that it is.
The studies done by SSA and GAO, which are non-partisan, tell you everything you need to know. They proved all your points wrong. If you are conspiratorial about these studies like the author of your article(hint: the author was mentioned in an article you sent from cnsnews.com) then you have more serious issues to attend to. You answered no questions that I posed because (a) you most likely don't know the answer and (b) answering them will make you look like a fool. Do you know why? Because answering them will debunk your entire theory of what you base your facts on.
You don't have a sound knowledge of economics. If you don't have to worry about SS then you have proven my point once again. Some people will have to worry about SS as most seniors now must rely on it. It's money that will be there for you or me or whoever else doesn't need it. But those that do it is the safety net of good government policy that reduced poverty amongst seniors. This helps everyone down the line. Instead of listening to the propaganda by the right wing echo of a meddling government, you should start worrying about a government that is fair and creates opportunities for you. You claim to be overtaxed. Why? Repubs have been in control. They have shifted the tax burden onto your back. Read David Clay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal". You'll get a sense of what moving away from progressive taxation has done to you. See progressive taxation is what Adam Smith envisioned for capitalism when he wrote "Wealth of Nations", another book you should read to understand economics.
Do you want to continue to make an ass of yourself or do you think typing the last words will make you right?
You're first link was subscription only as well, jerkoff. That proves that you don't know what you're sending.
Also, if the second link is subscription only, how did you get the clip that you posted? If you have a subscription, post the article. If not, I'm led to believe you didn't read the whole article and that you just cut this one piece of the article off a democratic talking points website.
How come you won't respond to the misleading premise of the 2 studies that you keep quoting. I'll re-attach it in case you don't remember.
"The studies you are citing as facts assume a 4% rate of return for privatization, which is not the real rate of return but instead is the lowest guaranteed rate of return. In addition, the study assumes a 100% rate of return for a single person and 150% rate of return for a married couple. Why 150% rate of return for married couples? Your study puts privatization at its worst and SS at its best and even beyond its best at 150%.
As far as your idiotic comment about the tax burden being shifted to my back, you got it ass backwards regarding this admin. So far under this president, I have seen a $2000 reduction in taxation. The following are the reasons why:
1) Child credit
2) Lowest bracket of the progressive taxation system was shifted upwards so that more of my money is taxed at a lower rate
3) Marriage penalty was eliminated.
Despite these tax cuts, I'm still overtaxed.
I'm sure those are some great Anti-american books you posted from your democratic book club, but I'll pass. Thanks for the critique of my Financial knowledge, but any negative feedback from you, I take as a compliment.
Good job, Eric. You're "perfectly legal" book was written by a New York Times reporter. Yeah, I'm sure he is unbiased.
Keep towing the Democratic line. The line must be getting heavy with all the people giving up on the loser policies of the dems.
You must have missed this post:
what's your source? Do you know who the author of that study is? What policy institute wrote it? What there leanings are? Who comprises their board? What the goals of the institute are? Who funds the group? Game set match ignorant american. Ass has been handed. Get back on your knees and pucker up.
Are you ever going to trust the rigth wing echo chamber agoan? You still haven't answered the question.
Answer that and you'll get your answer to this question, "The studies you are citing as facts assume a 4% rate of return for privatization, which is not the real rate of return but instead is the lowest guaranteed rate of return. In addition, the study assumes a 100% rate of return for a single person and 150% rate of return for a married couple. Why 150% rate of return for married couples? Your study puts privatization at its worst and SS at its best and even beyond its best at 150%."
Being that you are reading someone else's report as opposed to independently researching the subject yourself you need to question your sources. So answer the questions.
As for your delusions on taxes. Do you know what the marriage penalty is? The marriage penalty was not eliminated. It still exists. Do you know why it exists in the first place? Just ignore The father of modern capitalist(Adam Smith) thought.
You would pay less taxes if there was more progressive taxation. Your property taxes, if you own a home, have gone up and state taxes are going up and paid on a regressive scale.
To disregard a writer simply because the right wing echo chamber says that the nytimes is liberal is assinine on your part and proves your ignorance. Keep blaming liberals for your problems and you will continue to be in the predicament that you are in. Think and be responsible for yourself.
By the way how much do you make a year because my guess is that you didn't get a $2000 tax break. The new 10% bracket would only give you a $100 and the child credit is $400 deduction per child not $400 back in taxes the marriage penaly does nothing in the lower brackets. It only reduces your tax burden in the upper brackets. Again the changes only reduce your burden from the previous brackets by a $100 dollars at most. So keep parroting those rnc talking points and you will continue to blame dems for the problems that Repubs have created while in office. I sure the ignorant person that you are this is all over your head.
Post a Comment
<< Home