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
 |
Rock the Vote Bio: Rock the Vote was founded in 1990 to organize artists and fight against censorship of musicians. Since then we've evolved to focus on empowering young people to get involved in the political process. We use pop culture, peer-to-peer organizing, and the latest technology to raise visibility of politics and demystify the process of registering to vote. @rockthevote Email the author at: blog(at)rockthevote.com |
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.
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.
Good thing Congressman Dick Swett isn’t still in office
You gotta track down and post an .mp3 file of you on that show it would spread like crazy in the blogosphere.
I’m going to repost your experience on my blog to help spread the word (http://www.dudewheresmyretirement.com)
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.
You’re not a responsible grammarian, I must say.
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.
Hey, once you’ve elected a Bush and Dick to the top offices of the country, we can’t make fun of someone named Count Chocula, I mean Chris Chocola.
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 http://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!!
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.
Damn, Medved is an idiot. He’s a little prick who doesn’t know when to admit defeat.
You took a big risk.
Medved’s head could have exploded all over your suit.
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.