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.
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
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):
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/17/401k/index.html
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]
小说韩剧片小说电影图片网友自拍电影论坛美女自拍写真图片美女8电影网人体写真电影美女自拍bt电影激情电影交友宽带电影看电影宽带影院聊天免费电影免费影院名模美女明星明星写真两性qq视频聊天人体写真人体艺术三电影三片书库视频聊天小说丝袜电影剧场同居贴图小电影生活电影写真下载电影下载免费电影电影自拍美女贴图激情视频
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.
You’re a fornicating idiot.
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]
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購
免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛
A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片
av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟
情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室