Michael Medved, twisting in the wind
Today, I went on the Michael Medved radio show for an hour. What a riot.
I'm talking on the show and explaining why I don't think privatization would help young people---He starts hollering about how it is an outright lie that anyone supports "privatization."
This one really gets me going. I don't care what they want to call it. But I just can't stand to hear people yell and accuse me of lying because I refer to private accounts/personal accounts/personal-property accounts/if-you-can't-tell-we-are-messing-with-your-head-by-now-then-you-are-a-complete-idiot accounts as privatization. I mean really.
So anyway, Medved is like, and this is a paraphrase, "you are a liar, you are a liar, President Bush's plan would not privatize Social Security."
So, I read this quote from George W. Bush as reported by 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."
I had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in. That is Mr. Bush, describing his own plan, calling in privatization.
So then he starts calling me a liar for saying that there are politicians who want to get rid of Social Security entirely (an accusation that has been made here in the comments at this blog, and where I suspect Medved got the question). He's like, I dare you to name one politician who supports phasing out Social Security. My reaction was, I don't want to get into naming names. But he kept harping on me so I had to dig into my files.
So I read him this quote from Congressman Chris Chocola: "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."
At that point, Medved just lost it and started saying that Chocola was not a real Congressman.
Repeat: When confronted with the facts once again he accused me of lying and said he doubted that there was really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola.
Wow.
I'm talking on the show and explaining why I don't think privatization would help young people---He starts hollering about how it is an outright lie that anyone supports "privatization."
This one really gets me going. I don't care what they want to call it. But I just can't stand to hear people yell and accuse me of lying because I refer to private accounts/personal accounts/personal-property accounts/if-you-can't-tell-we-are-messing-with-your-head-by-now-then-you-are-a-complete-idiot accounts as privatization. I mean really.
So anyway, Medved is like, and this is a paraphrase, "you are a liar, you are a liar, President Bush's plan would not privatize Social Security."
So, I read this quote from George W. Bush as reported by 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."
I had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in. That is Mr. Bush, describing his own plan, calling in privatization.
So then he starts calling me a liar for saying that there are politicians who want to get rid of Social Security entirely (an accusation that has been made here in the comments at this blog, and where I suspect Medved got the question). He's like, I dare you to name one politician who supports phasing out Social Security. My reaction was, I don't want to get into naming names. But he kept harping on me so I had to dig into my files.
So I read him this quote from Congressman Chris Chocola: "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."
At that point, Medved just lost it and started saying that Chocola was not a real Congressman.
Repeat: When confronted with the facts once again he accused me of lying and said he doubted that there was really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola.
Wow.
posted by Hans Riemer at 5:10 PM
128 Comments:
Damn. You're good, dude!
There also can't be a congressman named "Delay." I mean, what silly novel did that come from? Usually, all they do on the Hill is delay. It would be like having a Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission named Orson Swindle. (Oh, wait. I think we did have one of those.)
Wait...
There is really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola?
Nor could the Treasurer of the state of Texas be named Jessie James.
I kind of hope that Denial will defeat Delay (as long as we all believe it isn't possible, maybe they'll all go away). Perhaps Frankenberry can unseat Chocola.
Who is this "Medved" that you speak of. I don't believe there's a radio host named 'Medved."
You've got to admit--that's quite an improbable name.
(...and whether I mean Chocola or Medved...well...take your pick.)
Medved has been saying stupid and obvious things in public for so long by now that I am quite convinced his attention-seeking is a narcissistic symptom of a raging axis II personality disorder.
After all, he adds nothing to any debate but an echo of the current party line. He just needs to be out there - as in, if we see him, he must exist.
Honest to God, never has one man with so little to say said so much.
come read me at www.guntotingliberal.blogspot.com
I'm a Republican, and a fan of Michael Medved, and I must say regretfully that I agree with you. Not on social security, as I am for the president's plan; but Michael completely lost it. He is normally a excellent debater, but he completely lost it with you. I don't know if he was ill prepared, or what.
I only caught the part of the debate you describe in your blog, but that was all I need.
Don't be dissin' the Count!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sounds like Medved "Chaffeed" at your comments. He seemed to think you wanted to "Hatch" a plot, or "Delay" things further.
Then again, the next intelligent comment Medved makes will be his "Frist".
My favorite has got to be the DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, which postpones campaign finance reform.
No joke.
So Medved had him confused with some Count. Doesn't everyone make that mistake? Especially early in the morning.
The last time Social Security reform was a big issue, it was saved by a compromise measure worked out by, among others, Rep. James "Jake" Pickly and Rep. Claude Pepper. I remember hearing something at the time about the "Pickle-Pepper Amendment".
Medved would NEVER buy a story as crazy as that.
Thank you. I am so sick of the lies. It's great to see you answer them with facts. No appeasement in this battle for democracy.
This is not fair you are beating up on Michel Medved he is an honst middle of the road news man and everybody knows you dems are not smart you cant even use good grammer and didnt do good in school.
Us Republicans got all the good grades and this is why we know social security is bad it is a welfare program for greedy old people not something Americans should support Michel Medved knows this and you don't, no wonder he was angry.
I am proud I am not stupid like the sorry liberals I am one of the smart people I support Bush he is right and we will see that he was right about everything you just wait.
- Arnie
You made my day! Hilarious, including the comments.
Notice how many of these right- wing blowhards go nuclear when challenged?
Yeah, like Hans Riemer's a real name. I say we go with the number system and forget all this crazy first name, last name business. And then, when you quote Congressman 62535-838515's crazy scheme to screw us over, dopes like Medved wouldn't have a leg to hide behind.
Beyond that, my big surprise isn't about what a hack Medved is, but that he's got his own show. Who the hell's idea was that? I wouldn't trust him with his own lawn mower, forget about a radio show; even if I *was* a conservative. Hell, I wouldn't want Medved speaking publicly especially if I was a conservative. He's just a disgrace. I hope he keeps it up. We could use more like him.
I hope everyone is pronouncing his name right...
Because it doesn't sound like the ceral Count...
It is pronounced Chick-o-la...
Medved is a whiner. He made a name for himself humping the corpse of Ed Wood Jr. for those stupid "Golden Turkey" books he wrote. What a repug turd.
Are we suppose to be impressed by this?
I have no idea who Medvid is, nor do I consider talk show hosts to be among the most intellectual giants of our time, but I find it hilarious that Hans continues to put forth that this socialist program is better left alone.
And what exactly is the problem with killing SS all together? Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts instead of letting politicians control the cash as they see fit with no written guarantee? Why is government the answer to our futures? Do you and the rest of your supporters believe government can make better decisions than the individuals of this country? I have yet to see Hans defend his positions on this board, and since it seems the man does research I'd like to see his plan for saving SS (and no, linking to the AARP doesn't count Hans). Tell us how you would save SS and why it will work taking into consideration the longer lifespan of Americans, the drop in those entering the workforce compared to those retiring and the increase in spending of the SS fund for general budget items.
You can't just expect to throw money at this issue and win, at some point the numbers will catch up with you and the money will run dry.
Good thing Medved isn't as smart as O'liely, he would have turned your mike off.
Congressman Chris Chocola does not want to get rid of Social Security.
Chris Chocola's Website http://www.chocolaforcongress.com/
Verifies that Medved was correct and Hans Riemer was wrong he could not name anyone who said they want to get rid of Social Security.
Strengthening Social Security
Over the years, Social Security has become a mainstay for millions of Americans. It provides crucial support for our most disadvantaged citizens while ensuring retirement security for American workers. In the short-term, this system is sustainable, but it will become financially insolvent in the near-future. I believe Congress must address this looming crisis with bi-partisan legislation that guarantees current and future retirees receive the payments they need and deserve. Specifically, any reform must be based on three principles: no new payroll taxes, no cuts to current recipients, and no cuts in benefits.Additionally, I believe Congress should work toward a long-term retirement security plan that allows younger workers to voluntarily direct a percentage of their payroll taxes into a personal account under their control. We must work to protect the promises we have made to American workers, while striving to provide a sustainable Social Security system capable of providing benefits to future generations.
Reply to Sean, ask the Enron employees how they feel about private accounts and if they are now glad some of their money went into Social Security.
First the count was for private accounts now he's agin' 'em. Flip-flop anyone?
Sean, ask the employees of United Airlines how they feel about Social Security now. Go over to TPM to read about it.
To the person arguing that Chocula does not support the phase-out of Social Security:
Talking Points Memo says otherwise.
A Republican, lie? That would never happen!
sean foushee said: Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts instead of letting politicians control the cash as they see fit with no written guarantee? Why is government the answer to our futures?
You want to know why I'm afraid of individuals investing their money with no written guarantees? Because I'd lose my mind when my in-laws moved in with us. Or be consumed with guilt when they died on the streets. Pleasant choices, no?
My father-in-law fancied himself as a wily, entreprenurial type. He lost considerable money in three scams that I know about. There were probably more. It started when my spouse was a child, and continued until very recently. Now my in-laws manage to get by on their Social Security.
So what would you advise in the absence of Social Security? Should my spouse and I sacrifice our peace of mind and chance to live a little now that the children are going on to college? Should we deposit the old folks with poor investment skills on an ice floe? Or should we support the safety net of Social Security?
Shame on you for bringing printed quotes onto Medved'd show, dispelling his lies. That's just down right...refreshing.
God bless you, Hans.
This would be one of the classic "slothful induction" fallacies - very frustrating and effective in the hands of a master like Medved.
Oh - what about Dick Swett? Wasn't he a congressman? Some politician, anyway.
I'd rather trust my elected officials than some corporate crook or hack--unless you intend to go off to your own little world, where your private investments don't involve other people or things...
Did anyone happen to tape that segment, and if so, posted it on the net???
:-)
Or, at least a transcript...
The really crazy thing is how Medved is turning this into a cause on his web site. But he is 'cool' - and evidently that is enough in absence of an idea or a clue or a fact.
Anyone find it humorous how Hans Reimer said absolutely nothing after being totally owned by Neil Cavuto last week on a Social Security debate, yet he launches a giant diatribe today about Michael Medved?
Once again, Reimer leaves crucial information out, to make his own partisan agenda look good. He mentions one debate, while totally leaving out his other television appearance- one in which not only Neil Cavuto, but other people WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN OUR AGE GROUP (unlike Hans) totally outdebated him on Social Security reform.
I also like how Reimer once again tries to scare this generation by using the word "privatization." The President has used "privatize" a number of times in reference to the plan, because it is a partial privatization- FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO WANT IT. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with "privatize."
Reimer seems to prefer "socialize" to "privatize" when it comes to Social Security, or any other program for that matter. Hans Reimer is a partisan hack, and once again he allows his blind agenda on this issue to override the well being of the generation he claims to represent.
Reimer has been countered hundreds of times on this very blog. For those of you who want to see his demagoguery for what it really is, see the comments in response to his last few posts on Social Security. Hans Reimer is as big of a partisan hack on this issue as any religious right zealot is on the issue of, say, gay marriage.
To any of you who feel that raising the payroll tax cap would be a great fix, I'd like you to try to explain to all of us how such a move would not have adverse economic effects. You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES- without having to raise taxes on anyone. On top of that, people get an option to EXTEND their earnings with a personal account.
Now, what the hell is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing- except for Hans Reimer, there's plenty wrong: there's no tax increase. And that, in itself, gets big government drones like Hans Reimer upset.
This one's for Reimer:
You know as much as I do, Reimer, that personal accounts are not "privatization"- not under the Bush plan. "Privatization" means shifting the entire system out of the government and into the market/people's personal control. The President's proposal- at the highest- proposes a 4% personal account out of the 12.4% of Social Security taxes that we pay- AS AN OPTION.
That's not privatization. And if you're going to argue that it will "lead to total privatization of the system," you're using a slippery slope fallacy. Hans, you've got no argument here, and you're lucky you have clowns like Medved who somehow can make a partisan hack like you look good.
Once again, you attempt to scare people with the word "privatization", even though this proposal is anything but privatization- especially with the progressive indexing.
Gee, Mikey, it's nice for you to show up just after Hans handed you your gluteus maximus on your own radio show.
usedmeat, are you referring to employees or investors? As I mentioned in a previous post here on RTV if you invested 100% into Enron then you got what you paid for, a high risk move followed by a high risk loss. Any investor who knows what they're doing will explain the word diversify is the key to a long term investment. Now if we're talking United pensions thats a different subject, but if we stay in line with private accounts for retirement how can you explain that any 30 year period in the market's history returned over 6% to investors while SS returns around 1%? Investments are hardly a one stock shot, you don't put your money in one facet of the market you move it around and keep it in for the long haul.
auntie neo - So just raise the tax on the rich? What about the spending that got us into this problem in the first place? Again this is like treating an amputee patient thats still hemorrhaging blood with a series of transfusions while ignoring the initial wound. You want to just tax people more, offer them less in return and allow the politicians to continue spending SS into oblivion? If this was a family budget issue I wonder if you would recommend having the husband going next door and taking his neighbor's money at gun point to shore up their $1000 bill for that new HDTV? So far politicians have said nothing about stopping the out of control spending of the SS fund, and unless you stop that throwing more money down this hole will do nothing but prolong the inevitable. And when the system finally hits the point where 4 Americans are supporting 1 what will you suggest? Just taking all of the rich's money because they can afford it?
cowlaker - for goodness sakes, talk about compassion... heaven forbid you actually take care of family! Since graduating college I've helped my brother-in-law get into college, my father-in-law enter rehab five times and my sister-in-law with her 3 kids move in with us for a time while moving out of the ghetto in San Antonio to a better area of North Texas and better schools for her daughters. I've sent money to family when in need of help because they're my family. If you don't want them to move in with you then why do you even care if they die on the streets?
I tell you what I propose instead of SS, why don't Americans forgo the bigger house, newer car and eating out each week and instead save cash for the future. The average poor in America still gets cable, has a car and a DVD player (I know, my sister-in-law was one of them... while on WELFARE). If people want to secure their future in life then they need to live responsibly, but then again if you believe people can't be charged with their own care then I understand your opinion, your a socialist.
"You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES- without having to raise taxes on anyone."
So you agree with Bush that anyone making over 25k a year is "rich"?
remedio - so in your mind anyone that will be hit with the raise in the 90K cap makes 14 Million a year? Talk about illogical statements. I hope you realize the majority of small business owners in America, you know the ones who supply the jobs (yeah its not the government) make over $90,000 a year? And I bet you're so out of touch with our current income tax system that you think I mean "take home pay" and have no clue that many small businesses file their business returns with their personal returns, so if their business made $200,000 that year, so did they... oh and thats over $90,000!
Its amazing how much crap is being thrown around here with absolutely no understanding of the current tax code or how those of us who own businesses generate jobs and pay salaries. In fact, how many of you understand that corporations don't pay ANY taxes... employees and customers do?
w.b. reeves - "So you agree with Bush that anyone making over 25k a year is "rich"?"
I'd love to read your source on that quote.
Sean,
That was not a reply to you, it was reply to anonymous. Peruse the thread you'll find the quote.
Since you address me I'll address you on a couple of points. Your argument about SS vs. the Stock Market misses the point. SS was not and was never meant to be an investment plan. It is insurance. It's not intended to supply a full retirement benefit. It's intent is to provide a secured basic income as an economic floor below which no elderly person can slip. As such it has been one the building blocks of the U.S. economy for over half a century. Ignoring this while pretending SS is comparable to an investment portfolio is either ignorant or dishonest.
The immediate "spending" that has gotten us into the current budgetary mess has nothing to do with SS. The current deficit is the direct result of the massive tax cuts which liquidated the previously existing budget surplus combined with the current spending binge in Washington, including the debacle in Iraq that continues to hemorage blood and treasure.
Since you seem to specialized in ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your prejudices, it comes as little surprise that you ignore the actual arguments put forward here in favor of your own inventions. One example:
"I've sent money to family when in need of help because they're my family. If you don't want them to move in with you then why do you even care if they die on the streets?"
Right. If cowlaker doesn't want to live with his/her relatives it means he/she doesn't care if they die in the streets. That's right up there with comparing taxation to sticking up your neighbor to pay a fictional $1,000 HDTV bill. Next you'll be bleeting about SS welfare Queens driving cadillacs and buying sirloin steaks.
You're in no position to criticise others as being "illogical".
As for the sermonette about personal responsibility, it would be far more credible if the US economy wasn't predicated on encouraging precisely the opposite of what you are advocating. In case you haven't heard, massive consumption fueled by personal debt is about the only thing that has kept the economy afloat for the past three years.
It may be, as you say, that the poor in America all own cars, DVDs and cable. Personally, I don't know of any such data. However, citing your sister in law's example proves nothing other than your disrespect for her.
hey dude, how about fixing the html so it's not all one big underlined hyperlink?
I'm all for shoveling all the money we can into the pockets of the retired and elderly. They are the perfect consumer. They shop at the Safeway store, require services,healthcare, buy RVs, travel and take vacations, help their grandchildren with education and braces for their teeth and generally speaking, fuel the economy by pumping every dollar back into the system.
Viewed in the proper perspective, the retired and elderly could be a great asset to our country.
Remember...we're ALL headed for the old folks home.
I have mesothelioma. It is untreatable. I'm unable to work & hence survive on SSDI. Would Mr Medved prefer that i live in homeless shelters or should i just kill myself & deal w the inevitable?
Wasn't Medved once a movie reviewer? How'd he get to become a policy maven?
Anonymous said:
To any of you who feel that raising the payroll tax cap would be a great fix, I'd like you to try to explain to all of us how such a move would not have adverse economic effects. You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES...
I'd like you to explain why raising the cap would have any significant economic effects (don't forget to compare and contrast to the effects of funding SS through alternative means such as federal borrowing, etc.). As for the claim that the "Bush plan" does exactly the same, horsepiffle. To begin with, Dubya's plan cuts benefits of retirees. One difference. Second difference is that Dubya's plan cuts in at $20K, not $90K. There's a hell of a lot of difference between the two. And that's just for starters. Not that you'd notice....
Cheers,
Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS ever since it came about, and they expect dems to believe they want to preserve the system? They have no credibility. I don't believe a word Republicans say. They just got done lieing this country into a war, and now they expect us to believe them. SS in trouble? Only because they are attacking it.
The Count said he wanted to privitize Social Security. His claims to the contrary now are just for political cover.
Hmmm Are you sure it was Medved ?
It doesn't sound like one of his shows. He mainly harps on Gay issues ! "Homosexuals this, and homosexuals that, etc" Hardly a day goes by that he isn't salivating on some GAY issue ! Some say he's a "Spokane Mayor" himself ! !
It's not privatization. What a dumbass thing to say. Trying to search for some excuse for this fool, maybe its not privatization because it isn't completely privitization. Think back to those true false questions from school. If even one part of the statment is false the entire thing is. I'm reachin here people. That's the best I got. Sounds like this talk show guy is a tard. Demo's would want to taxpayers to pay for his tarded person treatments. Anyway, Reps and Demos have this system on lockdown with their political price fixing we all know the Skull and Bones (yale frat thingy) run everything anyway.
I wonder what Medved thought about Reagan Whitehouse spokesman Larry Speaks?
Chocola, huh...
Many people don't realize that there really is a Congressman Chocola, heir to the famous Chocola family. Of course, they Americanized it at Ellis Island from "Chocula," which can be traced back to the Carpathian castle region, and the famous Count Chocula, also known as Choc the Ganache, the bloody and unredeemable.
So Medved has moved along to political commentary, hunh? I remember when he was just a poor excuse for a movie critic sporting a really cheesy mustache.
Come to think of it, sitting in a dark room being forced to endure improbable plots and poorly written dialogue is probably an excellent training ground for being a Republican mouthpeice...er...commentator!
Sean,
You just don't get it. You said "I tell you what I propose instead of SS, why don't Americans forgo the bigger house, newer car and eating out each week and instead save cash for the future. The average poor in America still gets cable, has a car and a DVD player (I know, my sister-in-law was one of them... while on WELFARE). If people want to secure their future in life then they need to live responsibly, but then again if you believe people can't be charged with their own care then I understand your opinion, your a socialist. "
The liberals don't want to help out anyone with thier own money or efforts (that requires accountability). They want the rest of society and the government to pick up the tab. That way they get to feel good without actually having skin in the game.
I read somewhere that if a conservative feels strongly about a cause they will work hard to support it, but if a liberal supports a cause they think other people should pay for it.
I still say the most appropriately named Congresscritter of all time was Dick Armey. I still can't here that one without giggling.
raising the cap will not fix the problem and raising taxes on the top 30% of income earners will not fix the problem. It is a mathmatical issue. What are you going to do when it's 2 workers to every one retiree? How are you going to survive when you have to pay $1000 a month into social security?
Saying the top 30% sounds like a nice round number but most people don't understand who the top 30% really are. The top 30% already pay over 85% of the income taxes and the top 30% only make about 50K and above.
If you look at the issue the only option that makes any real sense is personal/private accounts to compliment the money coming in from taxes.
Don't forget Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.
The whole Bush conversation on Social Security is nothing more than an admission that he sucks at handling money. He blows the doors off the deficit and then uses his own screw up to argue for gutting the most successful poverty prevention program in history.
Funny, we didn't need to have this "conversation" during the Clinton years.
As for Sean - dude, here's a quarter, call someone who cares about your personal issues.
Sounds like everyone that works at RTV is blogging to try to support the propagandist himself, Hans. Its inronic that the news of the day is the anniversary of the end of World War II and the propaganda that took place in Germany. I wonder if Hans might have some lineage back to those propagandists or if this is a developed talent.
Where was all your support when you got pummeled on Neil Cavuto, Hans? Why didn't you right a blog about that experience? Probably because you are still trying to pick your pants up from around your ankles.
These are some funny blogs to read. Liberals feel so triumphant taking money from the rich and supposedly giving to the poor. I wonder why there isn't a special section on our tax returns for people to give more to the government if they want to. I would think the reason is that no bleeding heart liberal would give a dime. That's alright, all you have to do is pass a law and threaten jail time to the rich and call it a day.
Do all of you bedwetters understand how many times taxes had to be increased to support Social Security? Over 20 TIMES. What makes you think raising taxes will save it this time? How many times do we keep raising taxes until we figure out we have a problem?
I'll tell you what the problem is. THE GOVERNMENT. The fact that the government runs the program is the problem. No matter how much money you send to Washington, politicians will spend it on anything but social security. Why do you people trust the government the way you do? Our government has not shown any competence when it comes to controlling any large program. The only thing the gov't does well is protecting us and endlessly spending our money.
It is surprising how many of you don't understand private accounts or whatever it's being called. First of all, your money won't be invested in companies like Enron. The investments will be very safe with little risk.
Second, Pensions are more comparable to SS than private accounts. If a company goes out of business, so goes your pension. You don't own anything. If you work for United, the gov't just approved your pension being cut. Sound familiar. Yeah, politicians can cut your benefits anytime they want in SS.
Third, a 401k account is comparable to a private account. You contribute to your own account and a company matches your contribution. You own the account. If the company goes out of business, the money is still yours. The gov't can't come in and force a benefit cut.
Get your comparisons correct if your going to make assertions to try to persuade people. If you don't, it just makes you look insignificant.
I don't know who this medved guy is, but after reading this blog for a month now, this is the only report of good news for Hans.
Anyway, stay in your broke system and keep praying it will be there when you move out of your mommies house when your 65. Meanwhile, I won't need it, but maybe you can come cut my grass for a little extra money to supplement your SS check.
Keep fighting the battle of guaranteed poverty when you retire. How nobel.
Dear Irresponsible American:
First of all, the system isn't "broke", it just needs a new President who knows how to handle money. This one couldn't balance his own checkbook. He's had other people bailing him out his whole life, why should this be any different?
Second, in a Democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Much as BushCo would like it, we are not yet a monarchy. So if you don't like the decisions "the government" is making, it's your own damn fault.
As Barney Frank once put it, if you think Congress is bad, the voters are no bargain either.
I was wondering how the heck there were so many comments so suddenly, but a link from Talking Points Memo is truly like a visit from the traffic fairy.
No kidding. I'm with Will. How in the hell did so many people respond so quickly. Usually it takes a day for people to respond. I guess RTV is making its employees prop up Hans due to a lack of support from the true youth.
Hey, Shorthorn. What president or politician would you trust with your money? Can you handle your own money, or do you need someone else to step in for your incompetency? Where you and I differ is that I don't care if it were Bush or your supreme socialist leader, I don't trust any politician with my money, PERIOD.
To your other comment:
"Second, in a Democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Much as BushCo would like it, we are not yet a monarchy. So if you don't like the decisions "the government" is making, it's your own damn fault."
Sorry, your government school education has fallin a bit short, like your horn. We live in a Representative Republic. Look it up. And no, it's not another name for a democracy. The founding fathers of this country did there homework and new that a democracy couldn't sustain itself over time. They're intention was to avoid mob rule; hence, we live in a Representative Republic.
Also, I never mentioned anything about Bush. What I do care about is private accounts for my daughter. Sounds to me like you have a problem with Bush. Probably because your horn has never met bush.
Hmm. I wonder who Barney was talking about when he mentioned the voters are no bargain either. He couldn't have been talking about the voters that don't even know what type of gov't we live under. Nevermind, that's voters politicians love, ignorant and passionate.
later
Can anyone tell me how getting rid of social security as we know it (which IS the Republicans plan) does not end with starving and impoverished elderly Americans? Is there any way that once the safety net is removed this doesn't happen?
I hope there is either video or audio of this debate out there somewhere. I'm dying to see this.
Spoken like a true liberal, Ned. Is that your contribution? Nothing intellectual to add? Don't know enough about the issue so you have to write about the grammatical content of the post? Thanks for the critique. Maybe I will keep my posts limited to one line so that I limit my exposure to error. Thanks for teaching me how to avoid taking risks, Ned. A true lesson.
a 401k account is comparable to a private account. You contribute to your own account and a company matches your contribution. You own the account.
My company doesn't offer a 401(k) account, because they don't want to have to match what I put in.
It is surprising how many of you don't understand private accounts or whatever it's being called. First of all, your money won't be invested in companies like Enron. The investments will be very safe with little risk.
And ergo very little return. What Mr. Responsible forgets to mention is that under the President's "plan", you have to get at least a 3% return on the money you put in your personal account just to break even on the benefits you *would* have gotten if you stayed with the old system. If you don't beat 3%, you will get a smaller benefit. 3% doesn't sound like much when all the market cheerleaders rave about how the stock market has a 7% historic rate of return; but what they don't tell you is that would be if you had invested your money on Day 1 of the stock market's existence, pre-1929! I've seen forecasts that have stock market staying basically flat for the next 10 years; so if you are just now starting to invest, and those forecasts are true, you won't make even the piddly 3%. And as all the financial forecasters have to put in the fine print at the bottom of their rosy scenarios, "past performance is not an indication of future returns."
Do all of you bedwetters understand how many times taxes had to be increased to support Social Security? Over 20 TIMES. What makes you think raising taxes will save it this time? How many times do we keep raising taxes until we figure out we have a problem?
Gee, do you think that might have had anything to do with the cost of living going up, or with more and more people living into old age, and living longer? Your question is simple to answer: if we are committed to supporting our elderly and disabled, we keep raising taxes until we are able to provide for them.
Our government has not shown any competence when it comes to controlling any large program.
So you are against the Department of Homeland Security, I take it.
Meanwhile, I won't need it, but maybe you can come cut my grass for a little extra money to supplement your SS check.
I'm glad you've been so successful that you are guaranteed to be financially independent. I haven't been so fortunate, and neither have millions of others. And it's clear that your "compassionate conservatism" ends at the point we can no longer be productive to you. So I guess at that point our elderly and disabled should just be eliminated, according to you.
longhorn - The president does not handle spending, that is the job of the congress.
w.b. reeves - SS is not an insurance, its a tax and redistribution plan, plain and simple. Insurance policies requires the payee to receive a guarantee which SS does not have due to the way the fund can be spent. Which again the president has nothing to do with and if you research how members of both parties in the congress have riffled through the SS fund for general budgetary spending you'd understand that many of the transgressions against SS has come from the left attempting to pay for more social programs.
As for my sister-in-law I laughed when you claim that I disrespect her, after all that I've done to help her and her three daughters get off welfare, move to a better part of the city and attend better schools she continuously thanks me and my wife for all that we've done. Hardly the act of someone who disrespects another.
In fact, your comment is filled with assumptions of bigotry and hate on my part, and its curious to read considering that all I have done is ask Americans to be responsible for themselves, help their own family and not force others to pay for their bills unwillingly. Individualism is a major part of being American, and unfortunately something that we've lost over the last few decades, its not a pipedream but the true dream of our founding fathers and one that has had a war waged against it for some time now (members of the opposition include Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx).
Longhorn, nice try but your as bad as Hans when it comes to facts. You said "Funny, we didn't need to have this "conversation" during the Clinton years." Below is a quote from your icon of the Clinton years. If you go back and look at the facts you will see that he was trying to have the conversation. He even favored putting money into a type of mutual fund account. Sound familiar????
Bill Clinton Quote on Social Security
"[I]f you don't do anything [with Social Security], one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States."
- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998
rob - as an employer let me explain why you don't have a 401K option, because their "contribution" is in your paycheck. If you want a 401K from your employer then expect him to cut salaries. This is part of the reason why corporations don't pay any taxes. Of course if you want a 401K or savings plan you don't need to wait until your employer offers one, go out and open a savings account.
First of all, unlike the New England Weenie Tax Dodging Bush clan, I'm actual Texan (5 generations back, to be exact). Shrub sucked as governor and he's proven equally inept as President.
Second, I did just fine under Bill Clinton, as did most of the country. Incomes were up, poverty was down, and we went from a deficit to a suplus (even the abortion rate was lower.) Economically, people as a whole do better under Democrats than Republicans (and if you want the whole charts and graphs version of that, go to www.washingtonmonthly.com). It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of voting for the person who puts forth the best fiscal policy. I pay taxes, I pick the person who will do the best job with them.
Third, like most self-absorbed right-wingers, you're oblivious to the privileges afforded you by other peoples' money. Do you drive on the roads? Do you take prescription drugs? Have you or your daughter ever attended a public school? Other peoples' money has been protecting your heath and your roads and your education, but somehow it's all "your money."
I don't have kids but I don't mind paying taxes for my friends' children to get an education because the benefits far outweigh the cost. That's the whole underlying notion of Social Security and why the selfish hate it so much: the idea of collective responsibility, that we are our brothers' keeper and that a civilized society looks after not only our parents but the parents of future generations.
And like most of the close-minded clan, you're dragging out the old glossary vs reality argument "see, I got the words right! Nyah, Nyah!" (Although I would advise you to try both spell and grammar check in the meantime.) Like it or not, in the popular vernacular we're referred to as a democracy, which Webster's defines thusly:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
At least it did until this Administration.
Rob, your post is so full of false information I don't even know where to start.
I'm not going to get into disecting your post but you started with "My company doesn't offer a 401(k) account, because they don't want to have to match what I put in." You need to check with your company. There is nothing that says that they have to match anything you put into a 401k. I assure you the reason they don't offer it is for other reasons. Have you bothered to look in a traditional IRA or Roth IRA? If you want to invest in your future these are great places to start.
I love that you don't let the facts stand in they way of a good story.
Nice that the Republican funders are keeping their trolls busy.
You omit one rather important fact: Clinton was discussing what do with a budget SURPLUS to ensure the longevity of Social Security, not how to cut benefits because of his own financial ineptitude. We had the luxury of having to decide what to do with the extra money, not trying to make up for the biggest deficit in American history.
We need to stop pretending that Bush and the right care about Social Security recipients, the elderly, or anyone else but themselves. They don't. They don't want to "reform" Social Security, they want to blow it up.
SEAN:"And what exactly is the problem with killing SS all together?"
For one, we would have to come up with something to replace current survivors' benefits. I believe 1 out 6 SS recipients are children.
SEAN:"Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts "
It's INSURANCE, not an INVESTMENT.
To address your "Invisible Mind" point, most people SUCK at investing and are NOT interested in getting better at it.
Here are just a few links:
"But a growing body of research shows that millions of Americans fail to get even the most elementary investment decisions right. " http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nobel11may11,1,7710650,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
The Silent Scandal: 401(k)s and the Failure of Responsibility
by Robert Markman
Journal of Financial Planning
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/1998_Issues/jfp1298-art2.cfm
Longhorn, you said "not trying to make up for the biggest deficit in American history."
You come across as an intelligent individual so lets not speak in 1/2 truths. Clinton oversaw an overheated economy based greatly on not real numbers such as .com companies and bad accounting practices (Enron, Adelphia Worldcom). Clinton's management of the system lead us to the largest accounting scandals in history and into a recession.
When discussing deficits to be accurate they need to be looked at in compairison to GDP. Clinton did well with the deficit and Bush has had issues but the current deficts are not the worst in history. To say so is to say a 1/2 truth and an attempt to mislead people.
Why are you so against people having the right to choose where thier money goes and getting it out of the hands of the government. No one wants to leave people on the street. The SS program just cannot continue in the long run on it's current course.
"You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES"
Not really. They tie initial high-earner benefits to prices while low-earners' benefit remain tied to wages.
Some of us remember "stagflation" when prices rose FASTER than wages. In such a situation, low-earners' initial benefits would be lower than high-earners.
Anon and then Sean...
Rob, your post is so full of false information I don't even know where to start.
Wow, and I didn't even try to make that many points, in the interests of keeping it short. You can't even handle that?
This is an educational medium. Please inform me of each piece of my information that is false, and why it is so. I expect you will provide at least some sort of supporting information, not just a flat statement that I'm wrong.
You need to check with your company. There is nothing that says that they have to match anything you put into a 401k. I assure you the reason they don't offer it is for other reasons.
If they don't match, they have to pay a fee; they don't want to pay that either. Plus my CEO said he didn't want to hassle with all the paperwork and record-keeping (he does all the HR work himself.) I don't work for IBM or GE, I work for a small internet start-up. We don't have buckets of VC money to blow, that ended in 2000 when the tech bubble burst.
I love that you don't let the facts stand in they way of a good story.
I could say, the President leads, I follow his example. Instead I will say, I present the facts as I understand them, and await someone proving me wrong. You say my understanding is wrong, explain to me how.
on to Sean...
as an employer let me explain why you don't have a 401K option, because their "contribution" is in your paycheck.
Which already has had Social Security and Income Tax Withholding taken out of it before I get it. 401(k)'s are contributed to out of pre-tax dollars; that's the only reason for their existence, otherwise you might as well use an IRA.
But 401(k)'s and IRAs are just band-aids, invented because in the 1980's corporations were moving away from offering pension plans and some way had to be found to fill the retirement income gap (Social Security was never intended to be a 100% replacement for your income). What is forgotten is that paychecks didn't get increased when pensions were dropped; salaries stayed the same, and rose at the same rates they probably would have risen even if pensions had still been offered. No, that extra money that would have gone to the pension plan instead went right to the corporate bottom line, as profits and dividends to major shareholders and bonuses to executives for being such good stewards. Regular employees were supposed to make up the difference out of their own pockets, and IRAs and 401(k)'s were created to try to get them to do so through tax-free growth incentives.
To some extent they've worked; I know I personally have saved a little money for retirement with them. But they've only been in existence for 20 years; the people who will rely on them for their retirement (like myself) haven't generally had to start drawing on them yet, as we haven't retired yet. Will it be enough to live on? I can't say, but right now I have about 50k in my retirement savings which is less than one year's salary, and I don't have all that much extra left over each year. So if I retire at 67 I'll have enough money to get me to 68, and then what?
It seems the Republicans don't think things out that way. They expect that magically I'll have enough to live on, and that if I don't it's my fault. OK, great, it's my fault, so what now? They don't talk about that part.
The SS program just cannot continue in the long run on it's current course.
Incorrect. The Social Security trustees say that even if we make NO changes, Social Security will STILL be able to pay around 70% of promised benefits after the trust fund runs out. This "crisis" is a manufactured one, to scare Americans into thinking we need to twiddle with the program or even junk it altogether.
Repeat after me: THERE IS NO CRISIS. SOCIAL SECURITY WILL STILL BE THERE EVEN IF WE DON'T CHANGE A THING.
Arguing that Clinton presided over an "overheated" economy isn't an insult - nor does it undercut the fact that we had the most robust economy under Bill Clinton than at any other time in the 20th Century (and Kenny Lay's top Object of Financial Affection wasn't Bill Clinton, it was George Bush...not to mention former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie was one of Enron's top lobbyists). A rising tide lifts all boats - and since the President submits a budget proposal to Congress that reflects his fiscal priorities, Clinton's ideas were far better public policy than Bush's.
And yes, this is the largest deficit in American history, in terms of dollars and volume and sheer nastiness. The GDP has grown because the population has grown, so that's a useless comparison. If a Democrat was in this position instead of a Republican, the Republicans would be screaming about balanced budgets on cable 24/7.
I'm all for people having a choice in what to do with their money, I already have one. It's called a 401 K. It's just that I believe that IN ADDITION to my private account there should be a safety net not just for me but for other people as well.
Thanks to Social Security, we've gone from a third of the nation's seniors in poverty to less than 10%. That's why it's there.
responsible american - dude you are so funny! I love your grammar - it just kills me... "Why didn't you right a blog about that experience?"
It's good to know that you don't need a education to make lots of money like you. Wow, your my hero! :)
Hey, No-horn.
The fact that you don't even know what type of government we our governed by, makes it hard for me to follow any other argument you make. You are so clearly wrong that there is really no explanation. Unless you recently amended the constitution, you should concede the fact that our form of government is a representative republic. In case you need evidence, here is a link to the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/const/constitution.html
Also, here is an explanation for you:
What's the difference? According to Merriam-Webster:
Democracy — Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (Ablsolute, or pure), or indirectly (representative).
Republic — A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.
Articles I and II of the Constitution are very explicit: We choose representatives and they make the rules that we live by until its time to choose again. Thank God we don't have to run down to the townhall, the statehouse, or the nation's capitol to decide every question.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Quit yammering at us and contact the Count!! Find out if he's a real Congressman and if so, tell him you support his plans to privatize Social Security. He needs the support of all conservatives who want to end Social Security. Three conservative cheers for the Count!!
"Wasn't Medved once a movie reviewer? How'd he get to become a policy maven?"
He sucked a lot worse as a movie reviewer than he does as a pundit. I guess the expectations are just lower.
Hey, grammar nazi. How classic. I suspect you must be either Longhorn or Ned. Either way, I agree. I am guilty of not proof reading, but oh well, I do have to work.
Anyway, check your grammar moron. What is your excuse? You are WRITING to condemn my grammar with a post that includes a couple grammatical errors. PUTZ!
Since you are obsessed with critiquing my grammar instead of my message, lets take a look at your grammar my friend:
"It's good to know that you don't need a education to make lots of money like you. Wow, your my hero! :)"
You have managed to make a couple obvious grammatical errors in this short comment.
Most obvious first.
In the sentence, "Wow, your my hero!"
"your" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or takes the place of a noun in a sentence. There is no noun in this sentence that "your" is referencing. I believe you were attempting to use a contraction. "you're" is a contraction that means, "you are." Insert "you are" where you placed "your" and the sentence takes on the proper grammar.
Now the not so obvious.
In english, "a" and "an" are what we call articles. "a" goes before all words that begin with consonants, but there is an exception. "an" is used before words that begin with a silent "h" (i.e. honorable).
"an", on the other hand, is used before all words beginning with a vowel, which of course is where you made your error by using "a" before "exception". Still, there are 2 exceptions to this rule. When "u" makes the same sound as the "y" in you, or "o" makes the same sound as "w" in won, then "a" is used. Unfortunately, neither of these exceptions justify the use of "a" where you used it.
My mother was an English teacher. She would be disappointed in my grammar if this were for an interview or a term paper, but this is a blog. If you want to critique grammar, become a teacher's aid and grade papers. Being that you're a liberal, you will be welcomed with open arms on a college campus.
I heard the interview and Medved toyed with Reimer like a cat with a dead (or dying) mouse. True, Medved did challenge Reimer regarding his misleading allegation that many lawmakers wish to destroy social security. Reimer hemmed and hawed for many minutes unable to come up with one name of any lawmaker who had made any such statement. I guess one of Reimer's assistants finally scrounged up the name of an obscure congressman from the 2nd District of Indiana (Chris Chocola) who had made some comment regarding the privatization of Social Security. Reimer was clearly trying to frighten the gullible into thinking that there is a cabal of Republican Lawmakers salivating at the opportunity to kill Social Security, but all he could come up with was Count er, I mean Congressman Chocola!
Medved called Reimer on every single sloppy and false allegation he made about the various proposals to mend Social Security. Reimer was decimated in the debate. Medved successfully challenged every single false notion that Reimer was peddling.
I suggest you go to the tape (available from Treefarm Communications) and listen to the actual interview. It wasn't even close.
Better yet, read the transcripts at Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505120007
Oops! Guess Medved DIDN'T deliver the smackdown you promised.
BTW, that bit about Treefarm Communications was utter shite. Why doesn't Medved have it up on his site?
fox thanks for the link.
Hans, you're making a big deal over a quote from 2000 made by a man who was elected in 2002? Has the Rep from Indiana made such a remark since his election to office? I know to many of you a quote from 2000 is concrete, however until the senator from Nevada made his comments known recently his last standing comment during Clinton's administration was in support for private/personal accounts... that senator is Harry Reid.
To all the blowhards arguing to eliminate SS: KEEP IT UP! And talk louder and spout your views more and more!!
It's a sure loser for any Republican who laches on to that idea, then the dems can take the congress and the whitehouse back, and restore Americas diginty and strength.
Sean,
-"SS is not an insurance, its a tax and redistribution plan, plain and simple. Insurance policies requires the payee to receive a guarantee which SS does not have due to the way the fund can be spent. Which again the president has nothing to do with and if you research how members of both parties in the congress have riffled through the SS fund for general budgetary spending you'd understand that many of the transgressions against SS has come from the left attempting to pay for more social programs."-
All of which dodges my point, which was that the current budgetary mess is the direct result of the Bush Tax cuts and the Iraq disaster. Shifting your position in mid argument is a confession of weakness.
The recipients of SS have exactly the same guarantee as does your personal bank account, the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Or do you conduct your finances in gold, silver or foreign currencies?
-"As for my sister-in-law I laughed when you claim that I disrespect her, after all that I've done to help her and her three daughters get off welfare, move to a better part of the city and attend better schools she continuously thanks me and my wife for all that we've done. Hardly the act of someone who disrespects another."-
On the other hand, holding her up to public ridicule as an example of America's pampered poor reeks of something other than respect. I'm sure she does thank you continuously. No doubt she laughs at your jokes as well and seconds your opinions whenever it seems advisable. Do you make her kiss your ring as well?
-"In fact, your comment is filled with assumptions of bigotry and hate on my part, and its curious to read considering that all I have done is ask Americans to be responsible for themselves, help their own family and not force others to pay for their bills unwillingly."-
There you go again with your fantasizing. If I'd wanted to label you as a hate filled bigot I would say so. I didn't say it but you did. Curious.
Obviously you have a problem with taxation in principle though you seek to obscure it behind fake populist phrasing about paying "other peoples" bills. What else do you object to paying for? Sewers? Public Schools? Hospitals? Public Roads and bridges?
If you're really so concerned about responsibility, when are you going to address the single most powerful engine of irresponsibility in American life: an economy dependent on hyperconsumption fueled by chronic debt?
-"Individualism is a major part of being American, and unfortunately something that we've lost over the last few decades, its not a pipedream but the true dream of our founding fathers and one that has had a war waged against it for some time now (members of the opposition include Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx)."-
Care to cite a single instance where the founders of the republic talked about "individualism" as opposed to individuals? These would be the same founders who decided that African slaves constituted 3/5 of an individual for purposes of electoral representation. Not that they would be allowed to vote of course. No more so than women as a class or men lacking sufficient wealth. It's a pretty sort of individualism that denies the blessings of liberty to well over half the population. Once again, you are either speaking from ignorance or dishonesty.
BTW, you can spare us all the entirely predictable attacks on the supposed "anti-Americanism" of my comments. Facts are facts. Pretending that the motivations of the founders, a notoriously fractious and contentious lot, were other than mixed and contradictory, much less wholely consonant with one's own present day political prejudices, is not patriotism. At best, it is self-delusion.
I'm surprised you didn't list Abe Lincoln after Karl Marx.
w.b. - if you want to make assumptions about my handling of my sister-in-law be my guest, the point of that diatribe was that unlike many people here I actually do what I say. I've gone out of my way to help those around me because I can, instead of having the attitude of not wanting my in-laws to stay with me when they get old but still somehow feel bad for them if someone else doesn't pick up their tab through SS. My work supporting my family is what we need more of instead of expecting others to pick up the slack.
If you want to believe that the concept of the individual didn't have a strong foundation in the founding of our country based on slavery then I suggest you read history a bit more closely. Whenever someone brings up the founding fathers and the concepts they placed in the Constitution some idiot always likes to bring up slavery as though that completely eliminates the ideals this country was founded on. So because slavery existed we suppose to believe that the idea that we're all individuals is a load of bull and we should all embrace the group identity? Sorry I'm not buying into that, and I suggest you pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers to begin your study of the founding fathers.
As for 'dodging' you point, I did no such thing, your whole point was based around the concept that SS was insurance where as the truth is it is a tax. That invalidates your point, and furthermore SS is not guaranteed, politicians can vote the money in the SS fund to pay for any general budget item and there is no law on the books forcing the government to pay you back a single dime, look it up.
Bush did not pilfer the entire SS fund, did the current congress spend.. oops, add more IOUs to already depleted fund? Yes, but you have to go back before Bush to find the group of politicians that authorized the rape of the SS fund for general budget use. Not even Democrats are making this claim because they know they're guilty of placing quite a few IOUs in that trust fund themselves. And once again, the President of the US has NO SPENDING AUTHORITY, he can only make requests and submit budgets. Its the congress who holds the treasury strings, so please get your facts straight.
Sean,
So, after exploiting your sister-in-law as a prop for your specious generalizations you now complain about my drawing any conclusions from your action.
Tough.
Since the (now)admitted purpose of your rant was to display your moral superiority to those who disagree with you, it seems my "assumptions" were right on the money. Surely it can come as no suprise to you that many folks find such self-righteous preening to be contemptable in its
moral and intellectual bankruptcy?
Clearly you oppose SS on ideological, not practical grounds. Your blather about politicians raiding the Trust Fund is dishonest in the extreme. While historically correct it is irrelevant to the current circumstances. SS is only facing a crisis if we accept the proposition that the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is worthless. That is what you are suggesting when you describe the bonds held by the SS as IOU's.
As I pointed out earlier, the currency in your wallet is backed by the same thing that backs the bonds. If the Government defaults on its obligations to SS you may as well use your cash to stuff a mattress because it will be worth exactly as much as those "IOUs".
So why has the President launched a campaign that objectively underminds confidence in the nation's credit and currency? Because, having liquidated the surplus inherited from the Clinton administration, he and his cohorts in both houses
have saddled the U.S. with burgeoning deficits as far as the eye can see. Like managerial incompetents everywhere, they seek to divest themselves of their liabilities rather than face the music for their malfeasance. The threat of default is nothing more than the final, most obscene raid on the Trust Fund. The sort of politicians raid you claim to deplore. Your attempt to absolve Bush of his responsibility in this by citing the budgetary authority of Congress is sophmoric.
I see you couldn't come up with single example of one of the nation's founders touting "individualism" as distinct from individual liberty. This makes your suggestion that I read history more than a little ridiculous. Obviously I know enough history to know that you wouldn't be able to produce any such evidence.
Don't think that it won't be noticed that you've have once again shifted your argument, further revealing its weakness and your own incapacity. You posited "individualism" not "the individual" as "the dream of the founders". The history of our nation flatly contradicts you.
The Constitution was a compromise document precisely because its signers did not share a single vision. To the extent that the document concerned itself with the individual in political terms (ie. the franchise) it was limited to white, male, individuals of property. Where the Constitution strained at this narrow definition it was forced on the framers. The Bill of Rights was only added after the fact, under political duress due to widespread popular opposition to the original document.
I could go on but why bother? A mentality that calls people idiots when they cite historical facts that contradict its prefered Disneyesque fictions is not likely susceptable to reason.
Progressive indexing is 1/2 the solution. The other is to raise the cap. Case closed. Discussion ended. NO CRISIS in SS. None. Whatsoever.
I got $100 that people like Remedio are the first to whine when middle and lower class people lose their jobs thanks to a 10% tax hike on the upper class (which is what "raising the cap" would do).
Reimer and his drones in here all fail to do the math on Social Security, and furthermore show the ineptitude of this generation when it comes to finances. Anyone with any sense would want the option to invest part of their SS taxes into the private market, yet Reimer and you clowns would rather just cut the benefits AND raise taxes on the rich.
That's great, and I'd love to see the rich pay more in taxes, but GET REAL. There are severe economic impacts when you raise taxes so much, especially on the class that already pays the highest income and state tax rates. These are also the same people who run businesses and hire your lazy asses.
Once again, the Rock the Vote generation screws itself over.
w.b. - a lot of big words there, let me see if I can make this simple:
1) My pointing out helping my sister was in response to a comment made that someone here didn't want their in-laws living with them, instead hoping SS would bail him out while at the same time complaining that he didn't want to see them out in the streets. I made the point that unlike some people posting here I actually back up what I say (what you call ideological) with action. I actually do the things I put forth as a plan, whereas many of you obviously just want someone else to deal with the problem. You can call that exploiting all you want, but you keep coming off as immature. I'd like to know since when is helping a single mom of three who happens to be your family considered exploiting and disrespectful?
2) You claim that "Your blather about politicians raiding the Trust Fund is dishonest in the extreme. While historically correct it is irrelevant to the current circumstances." If its historically correct why is it then dishonest and extreme? Is it you just can't understand the truth when its put before you?
3) How about a vocabulary lesson?
individualism - a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
individual - a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
So are you trying to tell me that individualism isn't present in the Constitution? If so, I suggest reading the first ten amendments.
Your arguments hold no water w.b., the fact still remains that SS is currently heading towards a crash and the only thing that will save it in its current form is everyone pays an increasing tax rate to cover the increase in the number of retirees to workers or we all start having kids at a rate unseen since the end of WWII. Take your pick, personally I'd rather see us revamp the system to make sure that no matter the population demographics of the future, everyone gets their money.
Medved's question was great. Why didn't Hans answer it? It's the same question people have had on this blog for a long time. "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?"
I don't care what a guy said a few years ago before he was even a congressman (which is actually right in line with what FDR laid out). I also don't care that in 2000 the President used the word privatization to describe his plan.
I want to know the answer to the question Medved had. How are you going to fund the benefits?
-W.B.- You know that SS is not an insurance program. You say the governmenthas to honor it's IOUs and you are right. Since the govenment doesn't make any money how are they going to meet those IOUs?? They must raise taxes on the citizens. Your argument is flawed. To say that the govenrment must pay the IOUs and not finish by saying where they will get the funds doesn't really tell the whole story.
Thank You for being prepared.
I listened to M. Medved off and on in Albuquerque until Air America came to town.Then I stopped listening to him altogether. I don't know if there was a causal relationship or not but soon thereafter M. Medved was no longer being broadcasted in Albuquerque.
At first I found him very knowledgeable and a deft debater. I listened to him to hear the 'loyal oppositions' point of view. However as time went on he slowly degenerated into a right wing talking point echo. Finally, when I caught him bending logic into pretzels and denying the validity of anything and everything liberal at the cost of intellectual honesty,I turned him off for good.
I am not surprised to read about his latest tirade. Al Franken also experienced his inability to admit error in the face of factual data. Too bad...he seems to have learned that making it up as you go along is a better option than honesty.
Once again...thanks for doing your homework...he's an ass but not an easy target. Congrats.
I wonder if Hans mentioned that Chocola says that his remarks were misinterpreted? http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/3752024.htm
And that he doesn't support privatization?
So, perhaps it is Hans who is the LIAR here. I'm shocked, shocked, that Hans would tell a LIE that Chocola supports privatization, now or ever.
LIAR.
Fcharding - So your the one person that listens to Air America. I was wondering who thier listener was.
Sean,
Once more and then no more.
-"w.b. - a lot of big words there, let me see if I can make this simple:"-
Sorry if my argument exceeds the limits of your vocabulary. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in school.
-"1) My pointing out helping my sister was in response to a comment made that someone here didn't want their in-laws living with them, instead hoping SS would bail him out while at the same time complaining that he didn't want to see them out in the streets. I made the point that unlike some people posting here I actually back up what I say (what you call ideological) with action. I actually do the things I put forth as a plan, whereas many of you obviously just want someone else to deal with the problem. You can call that exploiting all you want, but you keep coming off as immature. I'd like to know since when is helping a single mom of three who happens to be your family considered exploiting and disrespectful?"-
More dishonesty on your part. Or is it lack of comprehension? I talked about your use of your sister-in-law as a negative example of the self indulgent poor. You can describe that in several ways but respectful is not one of them. You attempt to ignore the actual criticism while fabricating one that was never made.
Besides this, your claim to be doing something while your critics do nothing is bogus. I imagine most of them have been paying payroll taxes throughout their working life. That sounds like supporting the plan they advocate to me. Your pretensions to moral superiority are a sham.
-"2) You claim that "Your blather about politicians raiding the Trust Fund is dishonest in the extreme. While historically correct it is irrelevant to the current circumstances." If its historically correct why is it then dishonest and extreme? Is it you just can't understand the truth when its put before you?"-
What truth? The fact that politicians have borrowed from the trust fund has nothing to do with the current debate on SS unless you believe that the Government will default on the Treasury Bonds. If that happens the SS debate will be irrelevant since we will be preoccupied with the collapse of the US Government, the US economy and perhaps the Global economy as well.
It is also historically correct to say that the Grant and Harding administrations were corrupt, that doesn't make them pertinent to the discussion.
-"3) How about a vocabulary lesson?
individualism - a social theory
favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
individual - a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
So are you trying to tell me that individualism isn't present in the Constitution? If so, I suggest reading the first ten amendments."-
If you hadn't slept through class you'd know that when you make assertions it's your responsibility to present evidence to back them up. Opinions without facts are nothing more than ignorant prejudices.
Need I point out that you still can't produce a single example of the founders expousing your version of individualism as their "dream"?
That was your claim, even though you now try to hide from it.
In contrast, I have given several concrete historical examples of why you are wrong. Evidently you don't feel competent to argue these points.
Your citing the Bill of Rights is laughable. As I pointed out earlier, the Bill of Rights didn't appear in the original draft of the Constitution. It was forced on the framers. They, on the other hand, had already written class distinctions into the Constitution by excluding unpropertied white men, women and slaves as classes from the franchise. Your version of "individualism" was certainly absent from the Constitution as far as they were concerned. Or don't they count as individuals?
-"Your arguments hold no water w.b., the fact still remains that SS is currently heading towards a crash and the only thing that will save it in its current form is everyone pays an increasing tax rate to cover the increase in the number of retirees to workers or we all start having kids at a rate unseen since the end of WWII. Take your pick"-
I'd take your criticism seriously if you knew how to make an argument. Endlessly repeating assertions without factual back-up while ignoring evidence that challenges your prejudices indicates that you don't.
Your talking point about increased tax rates is a phony. Given the state of the deficit, taxes are going to go up regardless of what happens to SS. How they are to be levied is the only question. For example, lifting the SS tax cap wouldn't raise the payroll tax on anyone making less than $90,000 a year.
Of course, as I observed earlier, you object to taxation in principle, so you don't really care whether taxes hit all or a few. That's what's called an ideological prejudice. I note that the framers of the Constitution didn't share this view of taxation.
-"personally I'd rather see us revamp the system to make sure that no matter the population demographics of the future, everyone gets their money."-
This is either childishness or duplicity. The market can't insure that "everyone gets their money". Risk is intrinsic to market investment, particularly so when investors can't trust the information that they base their purchases on. Just ask the folks who bought stock in Enron and Worldcom. Somehow I doubt that you intend to regulate risk out of the market. You're either ignorant, naive or dishonest. Perhaps all three.
w.b. reeves,...
Your point about individualism not running through the fabric of this country is dead wrong. The communist party never got a foothold in the U.S. because people believed in individualism and capitalism. People of all classes have a belief of individualism in their interpretation of financial success.
-the 3/5 clause was a compromise reached in order to not give the South too much representation in the house. While slaves were certainly treated as property and sub-human, the 3/5 itself wasn't out in to make a "sociological statement." I believe it is the belief in individualism/liberty/freedom that paved the way for groups to correct historical wrongs. The civil rights movement was based on allowing the individual to escape the stereotypes placed on him by the majority because of group identity and have equal protection of the law (my how things have changed with today's "civil rights" groups).
"I wonder if Hans mentioned that Chocola says that his remarks were misinterpreted?"
You mean "did he call the Count a lying flip-flopper who now claims he doesn't support privatization he even though he's on the record as supporting it?"
Well, no, he didn't say that but he could.
Whatever happened to the Republicans and Conservatives who actually had the guts to stand up for what they believed and actually would support privatizing Social Security? Are you all just a bunch of flip-flopping gutless wimps?
Re: anonymous
-"Your point about individualism not running through the fabric of this country is dead wrong."-
Never said this and it wasn't my point. The subject was Sean's version of individualism and his claim that it was a dream shared by the founders. He can't produce a single fact to back that up.
I'm sure the ideal of individual liberty was one of many reasons that the Communist Party failed in U.S. I doubt it was the only reason or even the main reason. In any case saying so doesn't make it so. There are plenty of examples of hostility to individual liberty in U.S. history as well. It's easy to believe something if you ignore all contrary evidence.
The stuff about the 3/5 rule doesn't really contradict what I've said. I never claimed that the framers were making a "sociological statement" whatever that is supposed to mean. What the framers did, as matter of historic fact, is establish three classes of people, propertyless white men, women and slaves, who were denied the political franchise. That is class legislation pure and simple. It cannot be reconciled with Sean's notion of individualism.
I know a large number of people who were active in the civil rights struggle. Some of them worked with Dr. King. None of them would accept your version of what that movement was or what motivated it.
First and foremost it was a mass movement aimed at overtuning existing laws and upending the existing political, economic and social status quo. This was not a movement whose primary business was combating stereotypes. It was far too busy defending itself against assassinations, bombings, mob violence and murders, not to mention the the police and politicians who tacitly and sometimes overtly supported such acts. These too are historical facts. You'd do well to study them.
w.b. - and I'd take you more seriously if you didn't engage in personal attacks.
Your obsession with the help I gave my sister-in-law is curious. Why do you harp on something I've already explained? Why are you determined to read more into the post than was originally written? My sister-in-law needed help, I gave it. If you have a problem with that then perhaps a weekend at a shelter or a rehab center working with those you claim to care about would do you some good. You can call that disrespectful, but I call it responsibility. I feel deeply that it is our responsibility to help others when we can, and not force others to do it in our stead. You want this done through taxes, I want this done though individual responsibility, we differ and you think I'm a bad person for it, I really don't care.
As for giving you an example of individualism, if you can't accept the Bill of Rights as a staple of America then tell you what, give me your address so I can have my sister-in-law come live at the state's house for a while, I'm sure you won't mind since you don't think individuals should own property in America. Or perhaps you should share the vehicle you're using with a few homeless gents because they could use a ride, its not your car anymore anyway, it belongs to the state. That church you go to on Sunday.. closed, your religion is no longer allowed in the US, and don't fret, those men knocking down your door are just there to shut you up since individuals have no right to speak outside of their collective or group views (since W is Prez I figure that includes you).
Now, do you still want to argue that this country was not founded on the concept of the individual?
The fact that you claim that taxes will go up no matter what shows the kind of mindset you have. Have you even given a single thought to cutting spending?! What a novel idea that is! Cutting the problem out of the system (funding general budget items with SS taxes) would help but not stop the decline in SS because its a system based on the many taking care of the few (a communist ideal by the way) and as the demographics show the many are becoming outnumbered by the few as each decade comes to a close.
At this point I'm not shocked to see one single person respond to my comment that in order to save SS in its current form (not prolong it until the crash) we would need to do two things: 1) cut the spending of the SS fund to just SS benefits and 2) we all start making babies, lots and lots of them. Of course if you like that plan I suggest you email it to the dems, they seem to have lost theirs, but of course I like the fix where SS is no longer a communist program and the money I put in I keep and can pass to my family when I die.
Oh and give the Enron bit a rest, you want to complain about Enron and Worldcom go ask Clinton where he was when these crooks were cooking their books during his watch. And to those of you who lost everything because you went 100% into Enron or Worldcom, I'm truly and deeply sorry, but the Libertarian in me wants to say tough you shouldn't have put all of your eggs into one basket... diversify and stay in for the long term... something the Bush plan states.
I'm sure I left something out that you were hoping to see me refute, but since I'm tired and you don't want to play anymore I'll call it a night.
Sean Foushee, What does Libertarianism tell you about knowing the facts before you apply your fingers to the keyboard?
"And to those of you who lost everything because you went 100% into Enron or Worldcom, I'm truly and deeply sorry, but the Libertarian in me wants to say tough you shouldn't have put all of your eggs into one basket... diversify and stay in for the long term... something the Bush plan states."
I quote from Salon.com's story on Enron. My emphasis in bold:
"The design of Enron's 401K savings plan, [Karl Barth, an attorney for Hagens and Berman, a Seattle law firm that's suing the energy trader on behalf of the employees] says, contributed substantially to employee losses. Enron limited employees' investment freedom from the start by matching their contributions only with company stock and by preventing employees from selling that stock until age 50.
And just as Enron's problems began to escalate into public view, Enron chose to change administrators of its 401K plan. During the period in which information about the plan's accounts was being transferred from one administrator to another, employees were locked into the 401K decisions that they had already made.
The timing could not have been worse. The decision to change administrators came just before Enron released information about its business that was bound to depress its stock price further."
So... let me get this straight: if a company forces you to do something, in this case, fuck you over financially and take your savings down with the ship, it's peachy?
OK, perhaps someone investing $$ into a potentially lousy plan isn't great, although I doubt the financial advisors supplied by the administrators were forthcoming about information. However, locking someone into a company stock-buying plan once word spreads that the company's about to tank is dead wrong, it's a type of stealing, and I hope Barth wins for his clients. It should be illegal if it isn't, but oh! there's government regulating businesses again.
Sorry for not providing this earlier (not that many of you plan to read the story), but the Salon.com article I quote is here (or you can click my name to head there):
www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/17/401k/index.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aaron,
Don't hold your breath waiting for Sean to respond to your points. If you read his exchange with me you'll notice that he simply ignores anything that he doesn't have an answer for and/or changes the subject and/or pretends you said something other than what you actually said .
Sean,
-"I'm sure I left something out that you were hoping to see me refute, but since I'm tired and you don't want to play anymore I'll call it a night."-
Actually, at this point I'd be satisfied if you'd simply stop lying.
I never criticized you for helping your Sister-In-Law. You can't point to any statement by me where I did so, anymore than you can come up with an example of one of the founders of the Republic advocating your brand of "individualism".
A few more examples of lies in your latest post:
-"I feel deeply that it is our responsibility to help others when we can, and not force others to do it in our stead. You want this done through taxes, I want this done though individual responsibility."-
I never argued this. I just pointed out that paying taxes was an example of individual responsibility.
-"As for giving you an example of individualism, if you can't accept the Bill of Rights as a staple of America then tell you what, give me your address so I can have my sister-in-law come live at the state's house for a while, I'm sure you won't mind since you don't think individuals should own property in America..."-
As anyone who bothers to go back and look at what you actually said (assuming you don't go back and erase it) can see, you were'nt claiming that individualism was a "staple of American life". You asserted that your version individualism was the "dream" of the founders of the Republic. Accusing me of denying something that you never said in the first place is simply a lie. As is claiming that I don't believe individuals should own property which I never said. That's four lies and you have'nt even finished the post.
The fact is Sean, you are a serial liar who cannot defend his opinions honestly. Your method of "argument" is very nearly identical to the sort of thing that formerly graced the pages of Pravda or the Voelkischer Beobachter. You distort, misrepresent, fabricate and lie to suit your ideological prejudices.
You can call this a personal attack if you like. I call it factual discription and, unlike you, I actually present my evidence for what I say.
Addendum:
As for what my view on the inevitability of tax increases says about my "mindset", I suppose it indicates that I'm on the same page as Bruce Bartlett, who writes in The National Review:
-"I now believe that the best we can hope to do is make incremental improvements to the existing tax system and hopefully prevent it from getting worse. Unfortunately, because the current President Bush and the Republican Congress have allowed spending to get totally out of control, I believe that higher taxes are inevitable. In particular, the enactment of a massive new Medicare drug benefit absolutely guarantees that taxes will be sharply raised in the future even if Social Security is successfully reformed.
Too many conservatives delude themselves that all we have to do is cut foreign aid and pork-barrel spending and the budget will be balanced. But unless Republican lawmakers are willing to seriously confront Medicare, they cannot do more than nibble around the edges. With Republicans having recently added massively to that problem, and with a Republican president who won’t veto anything, I have concluded that meaningful spending control is a hopeless cause.
Therefore, we must face the reality that taxes are going to rise a lot in coming years."-
arron - the argument was about those who invested in Enron, not employee 401K plans, but if we're talking about that now no one FORCED employees to join the 401K plan but the ones who did knew what they were getting into when they signed the bottom line. Does that excuse the illegal activities of the execs? No, but it doesn't mean those who joined the 401K plan had no idea what was going on with their investment plan.
w.b - you really need to go back and reread your comments if you think you didn't criticized me for helping my Sister-In-Law:
"citing your sister in law's example proves nothing other than your disrespect for her."
Calling me disrespectful isn't a criticism? Right.
You can say I ignore your comments all you want, but just like hans you seem to be caught up in battling vocabulary instead of the issues at hand. You want to derail an argument solely on your opinion that the founding fathers did not create this country on the basis of the individual, yet when presented with an actual example (the Bill of Rights) you argue that because some of the founders were slave owners that they couldn't possibly be for individualism. Well you might not like the fact that we have a Bill of rights and that they do protect individuals, but its a historical fact and part of the founding fabric of our republic.
But then again your claiming that it is my "version" of individualism that is giving you fits, so just so we're on the same page, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to your interpretation of my view of individualism?
"the argument was about those who invested in Enron, not employee 401K plans, but if we're talking about that now no one FORCED employees to join the 401K plan but the ones who did knew what they were getting into when they signed the bottom line. Does that excuse the illegal activities of the execs? No, but it doesn't mean those who joined the 401K plan had no idea what was going on with their investment plan."
sean foushee, you say this as though all the information were somehow available to investors (or 401K participants), and these people should have known what was going to happen to Enron. I submit that the information was not available to the employees down the ladder from the criminal (in my belief) executives. Further, the Bush Administration is excusing those executives big time.
And you must have not read or ignored that part where these 401K investors were "FORCED" to stay in the Enron stock-buying plan even after company-damaging information was leaking out.
I'm all for "free markets" if it means that there's full disclosure on all sides, particularly on the company's side. I'm for them if it means that labor is free, too. Free to organize, free to negotiate, etc. And, though we already have such labor laws on the books, I'm not for "free markets" if the laws aren't actually enforced or effecient. As has been the case with the last few Administrations (though the other 2 branches have a little blame to take, too).
Anyway, what the Enron scandal has to do with Social Security is, we would be moving from a system in which we know we're getting our money back with a guaranteed rate of return to one in which we're going into a much less transparent system. You don't know if the companies you invest in are withholding crucial information. You are certainly going to have chunks of money taken out for administrative fees way beyond Social Security's fees (though oddly enough nothing in this Bush plan has mentioned this possibility; my guess is they'll let us know when it's "too late" to agitate against it).
This is not what I would consider a good form of insurance. In a "free market," such a system would lose big time to the guaranteed system. I certainly wouldn't choose it, and I'm certainly not voting for anyone who supports and/or votes for the Bush plan or anything closely resembling it.
The catch with the Bush plan is, if you opt out of investing what used to be your Social Security benefit in private accounts, you get hosed. I forget how much you get hosed, but you do. The private accounts are NOT add-ons, but replacements. Further, you'd need some ridiculous rate of return on your private account in order to outpace the "clawback" (you could call it a tax, and then we'd see an outcry) of some percentage of your return.
No sane knowledgeable human earning less than, oh, I'm not sure, $50,000/yr., would invest in the Bush plan if it were an alternative to the current and guaranteed system we have now.
arron, Please read up on the law that created and governs SS, you'll see that the government is not obligated to pay you a dime back of any of the monies you're taxed for the program. You are not putting in money for yourself, you're being taxed to support others, and if the system gets to a point where its paying out more money than its taking in then you're not guaranteed anything in return nor are you given a concrete rate of return.
Right now politicians (from both sides of the aisle) are pilfering the SS fund for general budget items and placing IOUs into the account. This is the root of the current problem, and needs to be fixed. After that is done we can begin to discuss how to revamp the system to deal with the inevitable demographic reality that more people will be pulling from SS than contributing in the near future. A reality that will not allow SS to continue in its current form.
More dishonesty from that master of mendacity Sean Foushee:
-"w.b - you really need to go back and reread your comments if you think you didn't criticized me for helping my Sister-In-Law:
"citing your sister in law's example proves nothing other than your disrespect for her."
Calling me disrespectful isn't a criticism? Right.-"
Sounds pretty damning eh? Except that it isn't the whole quote. The unedited version follows:
"It may be, as you say, that the poor in America all own cars, DVDs and cable. Personally, I don't know of any such data. However, citing your sister in law's example proves nothing other than your disrespect for her."
Gosh it looks like I wasn't talking about Sean helping his sister-in-law at all. Maybe I was refering to this comment by Sean:
-"The average poor in America still gets cable, has a car and a DVD player (I know, my sister-in-law was one of them... while on WELFARE)."-
Caps in the original. Just to refresh, as I said previously:
"More dishonesty on your part. Or is it lack of comprehension? I talked about your use of your sister-in-law as a negative example of the self indulgent poor. You can describe that in several ways but respectful is not one of them. You attempt to ignore the actual criticism while fabricating one that was never made."
I couldn't ask for better proof of the above than what Sean has furnished by his clumsy attempt to edit the record.
If there were any doubt remaining that Sean Foushee is an intentional liar this should dispel it.
Addendum:
Sean continues to ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution as originally conceived and written by the framers. It is a series of Amendments attached after the fact as a compromise forced by intense popular opposition. If it had been left to the framers, there would have been no Bill of Rights.
w.b. - Do you argue that James Madison, co-author of "The Federalist Papers" and one of the founding fathers whom was instrumental in getting the final version of the Constitution ratified, was not someone who knew the intent of the founding father's when concerning the rights of the individual and their liberties? It was Madison who helped George Mason draft the Bill of Rights and fight for these liberties for all Americans. And yes I know they weren't ratified until 1791, but the intent was clear, based on the concept of the Republic set forth by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is a protection for all citizens of the United States.
As for the poor in America, your basing your attack on your opinion, while I was stating a fact:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
That report was compiled from census records and various other government reports, its a good, and long, read.
Just for the record. Nope, I don't believe that James Madison was channeling the collective will and wisdom of the founders. Further, I don't think he thought so either. I think it virtually guaranteed that we won't find any instance where he ever made such a claim.
Madison, as he himself would tell us, was a mortal and fallible individual. He was also a politician who made deals and compromises and was an active factionlist (Oh yes the founders did engage in factional strife. They were not of one mind.)To argue that he embodied the collective ideals and desires of the founders is silly.
Of course, there are those who seem perfectly happy to treat the founders as demigods, preternaturally joined in a sort of divine hive mind, so long as they can claim to be descended from them.
President Clinton: “What I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99)
President Clinton: “Even After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn’t We Consider Investing Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We’ll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can’t Raise The Rate Of Return.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks Via Satellite To The Regional Congressional Social Security Forums, Albuquerque, NM, 7/27/98)
Damn those evil republicans and their plans to get rid of social security. I know things were better under Clinton. He'd never try to privatize social security, or lead us into military action without the approval of the U.N. (Balkans).
Really people, partisan politics is a bunch of garbage in this country. Your side is wrong. Their side is wrong. They both LIE. It's not something that republicans own. Neither party's people in congress, yes, democrats -and- republicans actually pay into S.S. themselves. So yes, allow them to live like they choose and then be grateful for the small crumbs they throw your way. After all THEY are right, just because they have a (R) or (D) after their name.
Try looking at problems through non-partisan glasses, there's your answer... something I think this blogger isn't capable of.
The only problem is that Chocola (I had never heard of either, not sure I would have accused you of making it up though)said it in the year 2000 before he was a politician. I can see why you hesitated "naming names"
[URL=http://www.51w.org]Flash小游戏[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org/movies/13383.htm]大宋提刑官[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/mov/10399.htm]美女视频[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/play/16692.htm]美女写真[/URL][URL=http://www.52w.org]传奇私服[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/search.asp?Key=激情电影]激情电影[/URL][URL=http://www.52w.org/index.asp?menu=2]奇迹私服[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/mov/12467.htm]周杰伦 头文字D[/URL]
[URL=http://www.51k.org]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.51k.org/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL]
[URL=http://www.51w.org]Flash小游戏[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org/movies/13383.htm]大宋提刑官[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/mov/10399.htm]美女视频[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/play/16692.htm]美女写真[/URL][URL=http://www.52w.org]传奇私服[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/search.asp?Key=激情电影]激情电影[/URL][URL=http://www.52w.org/index.asp?menu=2]奇迹私服[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL][URL=http://www.53dy.com/mov/12467.htm]周杰伦 头文字D[/URL]
[URL=http://www.51k.org]免费电影[/URL][URL=http://www.51k.org/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL][URL=http://www.ying8.org/search.asp?Key=网友自拍]网友自拍[/URL]
小说小说电影图片网友自拍电影论坛美女自拍美女写真美女电影网写真电影美女自拍视频写真bt电影激情电影宽带电影看电影宽带影院免费电影免费影院明星写真两性人体写真人体艺术电影片小说丝袜电影剧场小电影生活电影下载电影下载免费电影电影贴图写真聊天美女视频聊天qq视频聊天同居韩剧交友名模明星书库三黄自拍
免费电影
美女
图片
电影网站成人论坛美女自拍写真图片18电影网人体写真小电影下载免费电影电影论坛美人贴图人体艺术>两性韩剧视频聊天星座网友自拍交友聊天动漫明星书库爆笑名模美女
免费电影网友自拍
电影
免费电影
视频聊天
视频聊天
美女
小电影
小说
电影
论坛
视频聊天
免费电影
小电影
电影
小电影
视频聊天
电影
人体艺术
小说
免费电影
qq视频聊天美女
论坛
小电影
人体艺术
免费电影
绝无成人电影
绝无色情电影
绝无成人小说
视频聊天
免费电影
头文字d
芙蓉姐姐
两性
同居
贴图
名模
交友
网友自拍
影音天地6 电影世界4 和讯影音9
新片 大片 最新韩剧 电影目录
中国401
我爱402
小贝403
视讯404
小金405
小鸦406
电影,下载,大长今,神话,恶作剧之吻,迷失,LOST,致命临界点,七剑,影片下载,韩剧下载
I heard you on the Michael Medved radio show and you showed that you are an enemy of truth. I pity your ignorance.
When I listen to Michael, I am always frustrated at how he is unwilling to listen openly to others. When another person starts to make sense that is contrary to his position, he gets antagonistic, changes the argument or is rude to them. He has many good points but is too close-minded to see beyond himself.
-Zenfossil
I don't believe that Medved is brown-nosing the Republican right wingers in order to be appointed propaganda minister. That job would go to Little Miss American Arian - Ann Coulter. No, Medved is just trying to avoid being hung from a lamp post the next time the Christo-Fascizoids decide to hold a pogrom.
I don't know what you're talking about when you say that Medved is unwilling to listen to his caller's opinions. Medved is the most open minded host I hear on the radio. Most others just cut them off, especially o'reily. Medved only shuts down the real cooks. But I'm not saying he's the perfect talk show host, but I would hear him out. He's probably the most informed individual on history and pop culture I've ever heard of.
Privitization schmivitization. Semantics are kid's stuff. Privitization of the SS system would work MUCH better than the current CRAP system that WILL go broke just as Bush said. Bush was right and his administration's ideas would work. Morons will disagree. I won't be back to see the "kiddie corner" comments on the fact that I just posted so liberal morons that want to stupidly respond to what I posted will not be given voice by me. Bye kiddies.
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/493.html]三级片[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/705.html]a片[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/816.html]免费a片[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/1202.html]性交[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/1490.html]性交电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/1773.html]美女性交[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/1857.html]做爱[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/2197.html]做爱电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/2389.html]激情电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/2729.html]黄色电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/2889.html]成人电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/3265.html]性爱电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/3484.html]偷拍[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/3678.html]裸体写真[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/3963.html]激情小电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/4334.html]黄片[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/4423.html]成人小电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/4761.html]免费淫电影[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/5032.html]av女优[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/5263.html]走光[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/5606.html]性福联盟[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/5804.html]大众成人网[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/5954.html]激情图片[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/6287.html]强奸[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/6532.html]激情视频[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/7317.html]裸照[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/7035.html]成人论坛[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/7168.html]成人网站[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/7443.html]台湾十八[/url]
[url=http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/9477/7761.html]台湾十八电影[/url]
[url=http://98bb18.greatestjournal.com]98bb[/url]
[url=http://18dy18.greatestjournal.com]18dy[/url]
[url=http://tw1818.greatestjournal.com]tw18[/url]
[url=http://99bb18.greatestjournal.com]99bb[/url]
[url=http://x365x18.greatestjournal.com]x365x[/url]
[url=http://dianying31.greatestjournal.com]dianying[/url]
[url=http://7sese18.greatestjournal.com]7sese[/url]
[url=http://xiao7718.greatestjournal.com]xiao77[/url]
[url=http://happysky34.greatestjournal.com]happysky[/url]
[url=http://happysea34.greatestjournal.com]happysea[/url]
[url=http://seqing18.greatestjournal.com]seqing[/url]
[url=http://86386318.greatestjournal.com]863863[/url]
[url=http://wanmm29.greatestjournal.com]wanmm[/url]
[url=http://kiss8818.greatestjournal.com]kiss88[/url]
[url=http://aisex18.greatestjournal.com]aisex[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home